Guard your victims, and eat them too.

This is the Gawker and Jezebel business plan.

It goes essentially like this: First, Gawker takes gay/women's rights and raises the banner so high that anyone failing to meet their standard will be declared a bigot/misogynist. This makes Gawker stand out since their stances are so beyond the envelope it makes you fear your views are not far enough. Second, Gawker finds examples of real life people in the relative protected enclaves [gays/women] living largely exactly how Gawker has prescribed, and they tear them down because WHO ACTUALLY DOES THAT!? which reaffirms the readerships' behind-the-times stances on said rights and effectively keeps them from progressing.

For further exploitation by the cycle.

And it makes profitable sense. Equality doesn't view pages; controversy views pages. If Gawker were an actual supporter of these rights, they'd be digging their own graves once the standards they had set out were met. "Wow, gay marriage is legal now, guys, time to go home."

Dream on.

And so it is that we now have three articles (or more?) about poor Bryan Singer who allegedly committed the crimes of forcing an above-the-age-of-consent gay adult into having gay sex and possibly of giving him drugs. But let's get real, the page views aren't about the cocaine, nor are they really about the rape. They're about the sodomy. They're about prying at that primal part of the readership that still looks at sodomy as inherently evil. "As long as we can dress it up in a (very flimsy) crime, it's okay to hate it all over again. We'll give you that permission."

So that the readership can be sated by seeing their primal disgusts affirmed. So that the readership can feel bad when they're told their cerebral views aren't progressive enough.

For a thought experiment, imagine if a woman of consenting age came forward years after an alleged rape at a sex party and filed suit against a Hollywood producer immediately before a big movie premier. It may be reported on. Once. But the obvious pretext as an attention grabbing lawsuit would likely keep it from being reported on again. Here we pay lip service to the attention grabbing nature of the suit and then we keep reporting, and reporting, and reporting...

And of course the conflicting points of view Gawker espouses in its story selection (here, that gay sex is/is not alright) isn't a single phenomenon:
Making gay comings-out news when we're told we're living in a post-gay society.
Making political sex scandals taboo in the age of a sex positive culture.
Devoting endless articles to Hollywood starlets while doing everything to destroy the beauty myth.
Simultaneous slut and prude shaming.
Simultaneous fat and skinny shaming.

You fill in the rest.

I don't mean to vindicate Singer for anything that he has done, but it is clear that we aren't punishing him in the social arena for his alleged rape. We're punishing him for his desire to have anal sex with young gay men, an act Gawker has spent years trying to make acceptable.

And that many of us had bought into.