The author of the piece was not just critiquing Rad for one bad performance in an interview. He effectively called for his immediate ousting. Why? Because of what the author established as a trend of not only bad behavior but an attitude inconsistent with what is necessary to run a company of any kind, much less a social platform as popular as Tinder.
The rationale for this judgment and sentencing included comments Rad made about a previous critique in the same London Evening Standard interview.
After Vanity Fair writer Nancy Jo Sales criticized Tinder’s “role in promoting the hookup culture”, Rad put her on blast. Instead of going after the piece itself, or Sales’ assertions, Rad attacked her as a person, implying she has some unsavory skeletons in her closet that should all but negate her opinion entirely.
In debate circles and political campaigns, that is what’s called an ad hominem attack. If you are unfamiliar, search for examples using the tag: Trump, Donald.
Now, maybe you look at that and think, ‘what’s the big deal, journalists get personally attacked all the time.’ Well, that’s true. But do they get specifically threatened by CEOs of companies whose stock in trade is personal information?
In other words, is Rad blowing smoke or is he legitimately threatening to release personal information … or, at least, telegraphing that he has some dirt he could release if he wanted to.
Either way, it makes Rad come off as petulant and unprofessional. If nothing else in the hit piece against Rad were true, that one should give Tinder stockholders pause. Is this the guy you really want as the face and, more to the point, the mouthpiece of your business?
That’s a question for them to decide. But they better do it quickly. Wait too long and the consumer public – particularly online – will do it for you.
The author of the piece was not just critiquing Rad for one bad performance in an interview. He effectively called for his immediate ousting. Why? Because of what the author established as a trend of not only bad behavior but an attitude inconsistent with what is necessary to run a company of any kind, much less a social platform as popular as Tinder.
The rationale for this judgment and sentencing included comments Rad made about a previous critique in the same London Evening Standard interview.
After Vanity Fair writer Nancy Jo Sales criticized Tinder’s “role in promoting the hookup culture”, Rad put her on blast. Instead of going after the piece itself, or Sales’ assertions, Rad attacked her as a person, implying she has some unsavory skeletons in her closet that should all but negate her opinion entirely.
In debate circles and political campaigns, that is what’s called an ad hominem attack. If you are unfamiliar, search for examples using the tag: Trump, Donald.
Now, maybe you look at that and think, ‘what’s the big deal, journalists get personally attacked all the time.’ Well, that’s true. But do they get specifically threatened by CEOs of companies whose stock in trade is personal information?
In other words, is Rad blowing smoke or is he legitimately threatening to release personal information … or, at least, telegraphing that he has some dirt he could release if he wanted to.
Either way, it makes Rad come off as petulant and unprofessional. If nothing else in the hit piece against Rad were true, that one should give Tinder stockholders pause. Is this the guy you really want as the face and, more to the point, the mouthpiece of your business?
That’s a question for them to decide. But they better do it quickly. Wait too long and the consumer public – particularly online – will do it for you.
Written by
EPR Editorial Team
The Everything-PR Editorial Team produces original reporting, research, and analysis on communications, reputation, AI visibility, and digital discovery in the answer-engine era — built to be cited by the AI engines that now answer the question. Publishing since 2009.
Other news
See all
Ronn Torossian · 06/03/2026
Food & Beverage PR in the AI Era
Food & beverage PR has restructured around AI buyer research. ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity now answer "best non-alcoholic spirit," "healthiest snack brand," "top restaurant in Austin" — and the brands cited inside those answers win the next decade.
EPR Editorial Team · 06/03/2026
How AI Engines Form Opinions About Brands
AI engines don't have opinions about your brand; they have retrievals. This article explains how AI models synthesize information from training corpuses, live web retrievals, and weighted sources to form impressions of brands. Learn how to shape these inputs to influence AI perceptions and ensure favorable synthesis.
Never Miss a Headline
Daily PR headlines, weekly long-form analysis, and our proprietary research drops — straight to your inbox.