I get it. Pages views are clicks, clicks are dollars, but shouldn't there be, I don't know, a limit to how much power a twitter mob has over a major publication? The Times censored themselves, but only after several people on Twitter complained about the appropriateness of the story, which was published just days before Nick Cave's son's death from a fall. The Guardian reports:
The Times article, which was published in its print edition on Friday, was based on comments Cave made in a magazine interview before the tragedy. The 57-year-old spoke to Kill Your Darlings magazine last week about the “moving” experience of watching his children encounter fear and said it was important for parents to “stand back” when their children approach a terrifying situation. The Times also described Cave as the “Prince of Darkness”, saying he has an “obsession with death and violence”. It reported that the musician, who is the singer in the rock band Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, enjoyed watching “super-violent” films with his teenage sons.I would have liked to have read that article. Probably some of it would have made me uncomfortable, but I want that option.
