EXCLUSIVE: David Petraeus Affair Photos


38 Responses to “EXCLUSIVE: David Petraeus Affair Photos”

  1. bardfinn says:

    The utmost in Petraeus scandal coverage. Puts the major media outlets to shame. Truly leverages the power of New Media.

  2. Over the River says:

    Using the suffering of others for a cheap laugh seems a bit tasteless. If your home, business, or even family are gone because of a major storm, you may not enjoy the “joke”.  Ha Ha look at all the burned down houses. What a hoot!

    • eae says:

      i think the point is that the media is focusing on the wrong story. 

      • Mister44 says:

         It shows how short our attention span is. Sandy is still going on in places and it is all but forgotten by a lot of people. In a months time this Patraeus affair will blow over. In fact I am not sure why BB seems so infatuated with it. I guess there is some schadenfreude in having the watchers watched themselves and as well as it being another example of inept government.

    • bardfinn says:

      *eyeroll* Satire: [noun] the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticise people’s stupidity and vices, especially in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
      Humour and/or irony and/or exaggeration and/or ridicule.

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        In 1985, some media outlet did a piece juxtaposing images of the Colombian mudslide that killed 23,000 people with comments from socialites about the Paris fall fashion lines finally coming out.

        “Thank God. Now we can live again.”

      • Over the River says:

        I’ll never try to slip anything by you.

    • Over the River says:

      One of two things happened here.

      1. I am the one remaining person on the planet who still can experience moral outrage.
      2. My life-long development of superior satire-detection skills has failed me in my time of need and worse than that, in front of strangers (AKA Internet-Peers)..

      • FoolishOwl says:

        I’m reasonably sure the entire point of that site is to evoke moral outrage.

        It also continues to strike me as astonishing how effective Occupy Sandy has been, and how ineffective government and established relief groups have been. It’s probably a relief to the powers-that-be that there’s a scandal just now, when it’s being demonstrated that a coalition of anarchists are far more effective than powerful bureaucracies at actually helping people harmed by a natural disaster.

        • Over the River says:

          You are so right about Occupy Sandy. They are so well organized, so prepared, so helpful, and so needed. My hat is off to all of them for their dedication and for putting action in front of words.

    • niktemadur says:

      Hurricane aftermaths do not make for titillating gossip.
      My interpretation of the blog, is that it’s about the sale of the almighty advertising spots (usually for five fucking consecutive insurance companies), a long way away from the days of Walter Cronkite (a non-profit network department), just what the film “Network” was predicting, far-fetched as it seemed back in the day.

      Not to seem holier-than-thou (which I ain’t), but all I know about Petraeus’ private affairs is what I’ve read here on the BB headlines, not even the articles.  The media has been in the habit of carpet-bombing any and all “sexual indiscretions” of “celebrities” so thoroughly, that at this point in time, I find them profoundly boring. It’s just a matter of overkill.

    • Florian Bösch says:

      Thank you Cap’n I didn’t get it. The point was that who stuck his dick in crazy doesn’t matter, because there are more important things, like say, all that destruction and suffering. And it’s not a joke, it’s a statement of fact.

  3. Eark_the_Bunny says:

    Gee, sex scandal gossip and photos too!  No thanks.

  4. Who is this Sandy person? Does she have a gmail account?

  5. Aram Jahn says:

    I live in sunny CA and have been on a complete media fast for a month, breaking it today. All I’ve done is meditate, talk walks on the paths in the woods of the Berkeley Hills, and eat vegan. This Petraeus affair seems to have caused an uncommon amount of environmental damage, and I’m wondering: how? Did this Petraeus guy and his women have atomic bombs they were throwing at each other? Is “Sandy” the girlfriend or the wife? I don’t get it. Must…investi…gate…use…other…sources. 

    But first: find out who won that damned election, as if it matters. BoingBoing: you’re the greatest!

  6. To boingboing mods:  please warn us when linking to such graphic material.

  7. it seems most of you don’t realize that news is entertainment and nothing more. its whole point is to attract readers via SEO and referral. on direct, they must keep the traffic by offering stories users are looking to read. Pretty simple stuff. 

  8. The 2-Belo says:

    This is similar to the things I posted after the northeast Japan earthquake/tsunami in 2011 when people in the US were fretting about radiation clouds turning them into bug-eyed mutants from 5,000 miles away. “JAPANESE RADIATION SPARKS FEARS OF INCREASED CANCER RATES IN US”, along with a photo of the entire city of Kesennuma on fire.

  9. rocketpjs says:

    The absurd focus on Petraeus’ sex life is a symptom of the news industry.  It costs very little to breathlessly repeat the latest micro-revelation in a sex scandal, and it takes little work.  Much of the articles (endless articles) are about 90% recap with an extra nugget added – if that.  This is easy and cheap to produce.

    On the other hand, covering a major disaster is expensive, time consuming and does not have easy answers.  News organizations don’t/won’t spend the money, blogs don’t have the money, and (most) journalists have other, simpler and more cynical goals in their day.  (Like submit the article before school is out so they can pick up the kids).

  10. Oskar says:

    You know, this is unfair. David Petraeus was the director of the CIA and arguably the most influential person in the military before that, and has had massive impact on U.S. foreign policy and the Iraq war. He is (or was) very, very important. He’s not Suri Cruise, he’s not Kim Kardashian. His resignation actually matters, and is an important news story. I understand that it can seem frustrating to focus on what seems like a tabloid news story when the aftermath of Sandy is still being felt, but he is a man who has influenced hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people’s lives, both in the U.S. and in the Middle East. Examining his capacity for sound judgment isn’t a ridiculous thing to do. And it’s not like Sandy was ignored by the media. Sure, it’s a story they should keep covering, but it’s not like nothing else is happening in the world. 

    • PeterWimsey says:

      This is a great post.  Sandy was two weeks ago and has been on the front page of the NY Times every day since then, including today.  It’s not being ignored.  But, as you note, the Petraeus story is also a significant story; it’s not mindless gossip.

      • acerplatanoides says:

        It’s hard to find the actual story though, amidst all the sexytime gossip. It’s definitely there though. And I think it’s not going away any faster than Sandy is.

    • AwesomeRobot says:

      I think it’s more shocking that people assume someone in power somehow transcends humanity and resides on some alternate infallible plane of reality. 

      He’s a dude, he likes girls, and sometimes makes mildly dumb decisions to impress girls. It’s not like the guy invaded Iraq personally with the purpose of getting laid. Big deal. 

      • niktemadur says:

        My thoughts exactly.

        There is one instance, however, in which I am deeply entertained by the sex thing, and it’s not even the sex thing.
        Anytime a public figure cynically rants and raves about bible and family values AND is caught with pants around the ankles, the hoisting on their own petard is too delicious to not savor.
        To name a few – Jimmy Swaggart.  Whatshisbutt closeted shithead pastor from Colorado… Haggart!  The Appalachian Trail governor guy… umm… Sanford.  The guy that wanted to replace Gingrich after the Clinton thingy… Livingstone I presume.  On and on.

        But Petraeus is NOT in this category.

      • Petzl says:

        And Bush invaded Iraq to … ?  Well, we still don’t know.  Kind of amazing this still isn’t a scandal.

    • Brad Gall says:

      You have a point Petraeus has most likely been directly responsible for a minimum of 10x as many human deaths as Sandy. 

    • FoolishOwl says:

      As Michael Franti said, “I don’t care who they’re screwing in private. I want to know who they’re screwing in public.”

      Personally, I’d be more inclined to juxtapose the silly headlines about Petraeus with photos of the devastation wreaked on ordinary, innocent people by Predator drones.

  11. Rick Adams says:

    If there’s an unfortunate tendency for the media to divert attention from hurricane sandy relief by using the Patraeus story, then boingboing is guilty of it too. Jes’ sayin’.

  12. DewiMorgan says:

    Oh, yes. I like. THIS is Petraeus coverage that’s worthy of BB! :D

  13. jbond says:

    A quick search on AlJazeera for Drone stories.

    Turned up this. http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2012/11/2012111393726260587.html
    David Petraeus: A US war hero? “He said that Petraeus consistently gave glowing and inaccurate accounts of US military progress and that Petraeus built a so-called “cult of personality” around himself.”

  14. peregrinus says:

    The titillation is shilly shally gossip.

    But knowing that the person with his finger on the trigger, able to massively influence the mindset of the populations he militarily oversaw, able to anger and breed a new wave of terrorists, knowing all that, and knowing that he couldn’t keep his mouth shut and pants up – it’s a little disconcerting.

    One underlying hard-point in the structure of this entire media narrative is that we all expect and need senior people in positions of influence to be clear-headed and on the ball.  It’s part of American culture.

    Abstention from licentiousness and guarding oneself against the descent into dissolution are part and parcel of the job.

    The story is complex, but the map of what-ifs is horrendous.

  15. C D says:

    Does this mean they can let Bradley Manning be free now?

Leave a Reply