Hitpiece Attacks Count Danula & Wife on their Wedding Night

Count Dankula - best known for being the guy who taught his dog to raise his paw when hearing the term "Seig Heil" as a joke to annoy his girlfriend - has been the subject of numerous unfair attacks from the media. Despite twice saying in the video that it was just a joke, and explicitly saying in the video and numerous times afterward that he isn't racist. He was eventually slapped with an £800 fine (roughly $1,000-$1,100) after being found "Grossly Offensive" in court. Yes an actual judge ruled on that. He refuses to pay the fine, and therefore could be arrested and carted off to jail any day. None the less, he and his girlfriend tried to live their life as normally as they could. A few days ago, they actually got married. They are currently on vacation where the Count Dankula plans to "work on creating an heir", as he put it.

However, just a couple days before their wedding, a brand new hitpiece was launched against Dankula and his now wife, Sue. Sue was contacted by a tabloid journalist named Lucy Samson on Twitter asking about one of Sue's previous posts. Sue had posted that she was a bit sad that some people had pulled out of going to the wedding a few days earlier, citing work and other obligations. Of course, this happens at nearly every major event with a lot of people. It sucks, but it happens. Here is a screenshot of what this tabloid "journalist" sent to Sue a few days before the wedding:

https://twitter.com/SUEHULK/status/1138775396479094784

Unsurprisingly, Sue refused to comment, understanding that this was yet another hit-piece - and an astonishingly dishonest and petty one at that. Despite having zero consenting sources, this hack "journalist" went forth with the story anyway, citing one of Sue's tweets as if it was a statement in response to the interview request even though it wasn't.

A photo of nearly the full article (yes, this was in print!!) can be found on the Kiwi Farms post below.

https://kiwifarms.net/threads/count-dankulas-wedding-targeted-by-ambitious-journalist.57406/

For what it's worth, both Sue and Dankula's responses were short, single tweets that seemed not to take things too badly:

https://twitter.com/SUEHULK/status/1139482447903711233
https://twitter.com/CountDankulaTV/status/1139485733046149122

Let's count (no pun intended) the reasons this is wrong:

1. Lucy Sampson attacking people publicly for people pulling out of their wedding, which is not only a common, non-newsworthy occurrence, but also something that nobody else should care about
2. This is clearly targeted, it's not like other internet figures get attacks like this
3. The article falsely portrays Sue's tweet "Some simply have other plans" as though it was an answer to the author's question, rather than a public tweet.
4. The article implies that the guests were pulling out due to the "Nazi Pug" video, despite the video being over three years old. The fine was also not recent. All of the guests who pulled out obviously knew of the video when they agreed to come in the first place. Anyone who applies basic logic knows that there is no connection here.
5. This attack came shortly before their wedding, and was clearly intended to upset them on what should be one of the best days of their lives.
6. Lucy Sampson's article was inspired by a tweet on Sue's page, which means Lucy Sampson hates Dankula so much that she followed his wife's page to find dirt.
7. The wedding still had fine attendance, a detail that was shockingly left out of the article and never added
8. Lucy Sampson's description of Dankula's joke leaves out the important context that he has repeatedly denounced racism
9. Probably a bunch of other stuff that I am not even thinking of right now, but feel free to comment below.

So now the question becomes "Why". Why would she do something so low, that any author who has taken Journalism 101 knows is unethical? Given what I have observed in my own life I think I have a good idea.

First, let's put her career in context. She appears to be a university drop out who is just trying to get her career started. Most of her online profiles trying to find work appear to either be blank (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lucy_Samson), or lead to a 404 error (https://imlucysamson.journoportfolio.com/).

The only place I can find much information about her is her byline on the site she currently writes for: http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/author/lucy-samson/

Clearly, Lucy Samson's career has not taken off, although she does at least have consistent work, even if it is just working tabloids.

A few years ago I knew a "journalist" for a local paper who wrote a similarly unfair and inaccurate hitpiece about a local politician. I want the keep this vague not only for privacy reasons, but also because the politician didn't actually do anything wrong and doesn't deserve to have his name tarnished further. The author of that piece essentially accused the politician of having taken part in a racist "slave auction" through his fraternity. When they finally interviewed him he explained that the event was never called a "slave" auction, but rather a pledge auction, and he never even took part in it. A black member of his fraternity came forth to defend him. The paper ran the article anyway, with a title implying he was present, and put his statement near the end. This "journalist" was also trying to get her career started. She had even volunteered for his campaign a couple years before, but still stabbed him in the back.

So here is what I'm getting at: These articles are resume builders for unethical journalists. They figure the article will get big, people will hear their name, and papers will come knocking for the views. They just want to make money and get attention. They know it is wrong, but justify it to themselves. In their minds it's ok because it's against a person they think is evil, and evil people don't deserve fair treatment, and they'll start to be more honest once they get their career going and get some money. Of course, that never really happens. Greed continues forever, and allowing yourself to be unethical creates a bad habit while hurting the industry as a whole. Ultimately, they feel they are screwing over a bad person to launch their career - honesty be damned.

As far as Lucy Sampson is concerned, this should be a black mark on her career. Middle-school level gossip about who has how many friends should not be something that a woman in her 20s writes as an article. Unfortunately, despite how unethical this article is, she probably wont get fired or face repercussions. I mean she writes for tabloids after all. Still, hopefully this article and other criticizing her pop-up in the Google search results when future employers look up "Lucy Sampson". On that note, please help spread this article, share it, write your own, find it through Google, link to it, etc. The only way to stop unethical journalism is to make it look so bad that people can't fuel their careers off of it.

---

Here is Dankula's famous video, drop him a sub and like to congratulate him and help him out:

Also feel free to follow him and his wife on Twitter and offer congratulations there.