The Blink site is run by Shannon Stoy, through her Public Relations LLC. The site appears to generate revenue as it has banner ads and is hosted on the Scared Monkeys radio server. It seems she directs readers to Scared Monkeys and they direct readers to her, cross promoting.
I assume then that there is profit generated by her writing on the site.
It’s my opinion that Shannon Stoy is knowingly and intentionally writing sensationally and without concern for the truth or the wellbeing of either victims or their families (or good samaritans such as myself) simply to generate profit and personal notoriety.
And I think that’s horrible.
This is strictly my opinion. I base it on the timelines I’ve read of her days at XXXXXXX extending to her current site.
What is almost comical, is that what is good for the goose does not appear to be good for the gander. While she is 100% guilty of libel in her interview about me, she is unwilling to retract. She has little concern for the effect her disinformation has on the people she “reports” on.
But when the shoe is on the other foot, she has been known to be threatening and demanding.
Originally Posted by Shannon Stoy
To say this is a gross invasion of my privacy and is causing severe distress and concern for me, my family, and in some cases professional colleagues, is an understatement.
I note that there are a few posts about defamation and the like; Let me assure you the following laws, including, but not limited to: cyber bullying, cyber stalking and harassment make no provision for defamatory or libelous acts when they are exacted in this manner.
It’s just really disheartening for me to know that while there are groups like the people I’ve encountered on this site, with genuine concern for the wellbeing of victims, families, bystanders, etc., there are also people like Ms. Stoy, who run slipshod across common decency for the chance to make a little money.
The common claim of Ms. Stoy is that she is campaigning and crusading for victims, but in actuality, it appears her primary focus is to drive hits to her website through any means necessary. If reporting on case developments were truly her goal, the publication of my letter would be an immediate action.
Imagine you wrote an article about some one. Image the police department connected were releasing almost no information to the public. Imagine that person then releases a statement from that police department (which is sharing almost no information with the public) directly to you.
That is an exclusive, pertinent and substantial development. This person you are reporting on was important enough to base a II part story on (but then delay part II when he surprisingly showed up to defend himself). Seems like a big deal to me.
But it remained buried in her comments section, which is why ultimately I posted it on this site.
“Hey, look at this bad guy!” draws more hits than “Hey, this guy might not be so bad.” That’s why I’m assuming she hasn’t retracted her errors or printed the exclusive development that I sent her. Not enough hits. Bad for business. Pride.