Color us so NOT surprised!
Yesterday, we posted Joe's heartfelt response to the article - which claimed Dan's death was caused by an 'alleged overdose' - calling the reporter's word-choice 'factually incorrect'.
"Amy Wallace and her editors understood the pain Dan's passing caused the Gordon-Levitt family, the story sought to be respectful—and brief—in the way it described his death, which GQ felt was a relevant fact in Joseph Gordon-Levitt's biography.
The story stated that Dan, 36, who was close to his brother and often collaborated with him, 'died of an alleged drug overdose in 2010. 'It was an accident' is all Joe will say about that.'
The magazine stands by its reporting, the facts of which are fully supported—and have been confirmed in detail—by the Los Angeles County coroner's office."
Ok, we concede that technically, Amy's reporting was factual, but we think GQ is missing the point here.
Out of all the positive information that Joseph claims he provided about his brother, the reporter simply chose to report on one detail - a scandalous one at that - without any context or frame of reference. We understand that relaying information is a journalist's JOB, but the way in which one relays that information is JUST as important in shaping people's opinions as the facts themselves.
[Image via WENN.]