So here's the story of a poor woman who sent some photos of herself to a guy she was chatting with on the internet whose girlfriend found out and tried to get her fired.
Firstly, I note how the whole article mentions extortion, yet by all accounts the jilted girlfriend only tried to threaten her off her man and sent photos to her boss to try to get the woman fired. I saw no mention of "give me $20k or else".
Secondly, it's not until the sixth paragraph that we find out the online abuse (or 'extortion') came from the guy's fiancee, NOT the guy himself. In the article's defense, it was written in chronological order, so taking six paragraphs to get to that little detail is somewhat forgivable.
Thirdly, the woman worked in retail, so getting fired from a job in retail because some random stranger wasn't likely to happen, but even if it did it would hardly 'ruin her life'.
True to form, there's only a handful of paragraphs where the gender of the abusive person is mentioned, whereas had the offender been male every other paragraph would have started with "The man then..."
Remember, the media lies by omission and will play down or leave out details they don't want featured. Had it been a man doing those nasty things the headline would have been "Man sends images of woman to her boss".