It’s so tempting to give a group award to some of those on a recent post here. But I have to admit that when gossip site, TMZ, admitted this afternoon it had been hoaxed in publishing “The JFK Photo That Could Have Changed History” this morning, one of the commenters (anonymity shielding brainlessness as usual) earned a place in the ignorant commenter Hall of Shame.
TMZ admitted the photo, of nude women cavorting on a yacht while “JFK” sunbathed, supposedly taken in 1956 (and thus might have “changed history” by denying him the presidency if the scandalous pic was published back then) was actually a Playboy photo-shoot from 1967. But at least two commenters felt theyneeded to share the wisdom that it couldn’t have been JFK in the 1967 Playboy nude photoshoot because he’d been assassinated in 1963!
I’m not making this up. Here’s one:
“6. Photo can’t be of a 1967 playboy shoot with JFK….. He was already dead!!!! If it is a playboy shoot, that’s not JFK.”
Good catch! It was an anonymous commenter (of course) though I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the historically ignorant commenters here came up with this brilliant deduction. C’mon fess up. That’s the downside of your cowardly anonymity. It makes you a suspect for any random stupidity.
Of course, as with all ignorant commenters there was a dark side: one of the first reactions–before it was revealed to be a hoax–was (I swear) an anonymous (natch) commenter who wrote in “I’m glad he was assassinated”. Nice. But not, alas, untypical of anonymous commenter mentality. In fact all too typical.
Why am I not surprised–at both the stupidity and the ugliness?