Jezebel covered the in memoriam recognition of Sarah Jones, a camera assistant who died on the set of an independent film. She was briefly recognized in the sequence where they recall the passing of people in the industry. A few wore black ribbons to remember her. Kate Dries states: "In truth, on a night when only the most visible faces are celebrated, giving Jones her own shout-out was the only way to placate a large mass of unionized workers over their valid concerns about the safety standards of their industry."

But the question that many jezebel readers have is whether the headline is minimizing and trivializing the issues here. I wonder myself whether it actually captures what Kate Dries is critiquing—b/c it seems she is critiquing the superficial nature of the memorial and not the anger of the people who want her to be memorialized.

For that matter, who the fuck writes the headlines for Jezebel? Because they've incited anger like this before and needlessly and they often hit the wrong target. Sometimes when jezebel writers want to critique the superficial nature of the media, the headline makes it into something far more petty and sensationalistic. What's too bad is criticizing the media itself can attract people's eyeballs and actually contribute to a more substantive discussion.

The headline:

Oscars Half-Assed 'In Memoriam' Move Placates Angry Fans of Dead Woman


The response:


As a long term reader of Jezebel, a below the liner, and a member of the technical crew of Midnight Rider, fuck you and your headline. Today 11:45am