Dissent Of The Day, Ctd

A reader writes:

You wrote: "Well, I wouldn't have known about this unless his new wife hadn't posted photos on her Facebook page." Seriously? That's the new standard? Sarah Palin's daughter-in-law tried to share pictures with friends and family, and that makes it our business? Hell no. Palin's noxious behavior does not give you cover to be one magnitude less noxious. In fact, it should give you more concern for what proper journalism should look like: a continuing observation of substantive issues in the lives of the public, not simply anything within distant sight of the public. Palin's poison is coursing through your arteries and your readers are trying to get that idea through to you.

Another writes:

You say that Britta posted the photo, but that doesn't seem to be the case, based on the Gawker item you originally linked to. The photo was posted by a male – based on the profile pic – who wrote "my beautiful britta pie!", so presumably it was Track. However, Gawker redacted the name of the poster, which wouldn't make sense if it was Track.

We emailed Maureen O'Connor at Gawker and she clarified that "it was a close friend who posted it" – not Britta or Track. Another reader still thinks it's a legitimate story:

Track Palin and and his wife either sold, or allowed to be sold, photos and details of their wedding to People magazine. Persons who voluntarily expose and publicize their lives via a celebrity news publication have clearly made an "effort to be in the public spotlight" and have chosen to be public figures.  It's likely they received substantial remuneration in exchange for that exposure.

Furthermore, Britta's apparent due date (September 29th) indicates that she was five months pregnant on her wedding day.  This is newsworthy, considering the family's well-circulated views about abstinence and pre-marital sex.