Friday, November 30

Nothing drives blog traffic like a sex scandal

And if the scandal involves a high ranking official from one the biggest charities in the country who is forced to resign over an affair with a subordinate... that's going to grab a lot people's attention.

This blog experienced one of the biggest spikes ever from individual Google searches on Thursday. Visitor numbers spiked after rumors swirled that the affair resulted in a pregnancy involving a former TV reporter who is working with a Mississippi chapter of the Red Cross.

All day long, I saw visitors coming to the site for the first time after typing in search terms, such as: "Everson affair pregnant scandal Red Cross," or "Red Cross affair made her pregnant" or "Everson resigns pregnancy affair."

It seems clear to me those spikes came from people who were hunting to find the identity of the unnamed woman in the affair. The Nonprofit Times knows the woman's identity, but chose not to publish it for editorial reasons.

...sources inside the organization told The NonProfit Times that the relationship was not a well-kept secret. In fact, according to a staff member with direct knowledge of the situation, Everson’s inner circle had unofficially warned him he was in dangerous territory with the relationship.
One contact of mine at a well known philanthropy paper told me:


"I'm actually not sure how we would handle the publishing of her name if we did have it -- though I think it's telling that the NY Post actually chose not to publish it."
So - I'm torn between conflicting feeling about whether or not publishing the identity of others involved in the story should be made public. I understand that some private issues should play out in private... and I certainly understand that many co-workers (even subordinates) find themselves in office relationships.

My intern finally tracked down the woman's identity and her picture, but I am not convinced publishing it is the best option. So what do you think?

Should we put it to a vote? Do you think bloggers who have the woman's name, identity, or picture of the poorly kept secret should keep it secret or make the name public?

Maybe we should use our Don't Tell The Donor official poll on the right hand side to cast your vote on what you would like to see happen.

9 comments:

Johnny said...

sex sells everything... even blog ads

Anonymous said...

I say if you have the name or the photo publish it.

Anonymous said...

For some reason I found this link interesting....

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:Q2rY4zMVm3IJ:www.pascagoularotary.org/ourleaders.html+Paige+Roberts+red+cross&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=uk

Mike H. said...

Sure I am curious and I want to know more about the story... but I think it matters whether of not the uneven power relationship made it so that both players were not equal players in the affair.

If they weren't equal players, I think some effort should be made to allow the woman privacy to decide for herself without being outed.

Anonymous said...

It's ironic that an anonymous blogger with wrestling with issues on whether or not to "out" someone else's identity.

major gifts rule said...

Did you see this portion of the Nonprofit Times story?

And although the board was given notice of the relationship just nine days earlier, sources inside the organization told The NonProfit Times that the relationship was not a well-kept secret. In fact, according to a staff member with direct knowledge of the situation, Everson’s inner circle had unofficially warned him he was in dangerous territory with the relationship.

Alice said...

She had sex -- she wasn't raped. What's the question?

Anonymous said...

She had sex -- she wasn't raped. What's the question?

elephantguy said...

What good would identifying her do? Forget Everson; think about his wife and his kids. And if this woman is also married, how would identifying her help her family? The whole situation is sad because of the actions of two people who acted stupidly and selfishly. I see no reason to exacerbate the situation by causing harm to presumably innocent people.