Joe Jonas and Sophie Turner proved that family sticks together on Tuesday when they came to the defense of Priyanka Chopra after New York Magazine‘s The Cut printed an article titled, “Is Priyanka Chopra and Nick Jonas’s Love for Real?” according to a report by E! News.
The article addressed the Bollywood star in a skeptical light, referring to Joe Jonas’ new sister-in-law as a “global scam artist,” in writing — according to screenshots from the article collected by India Today, “At times, marriage can be a beautifully wonderful union that warms even the coldest of hearts, but sadly, this union evokes no such feeling. All Nick wanted was a possible fling with Hollywood’s latest It Woman, but instead he wound up staring straight at a life sentence with a global scam artist.”
The article went on to savage Chopra, citing her need to “marry up” as her main purpose in getting hitched with Jonas — and even criticizing the ceremony itself, for being “almost a week long.” The logic of the attack was that the ceremony was an overboard and flashy display intended to blind observers to the disingenuous nature of their marriage, ignoring the fact that traditional Indian wedding ceremonies are known to span about five days.
The author went on to end the post by writing, “Nick, if you’re reading this, find that horse and gallop away as fast you can!”
Nick’s older brother, Joe, was quick to jump to the defense of the newlyweds, responding via Twitter by writing, “This is disgusting. @TheCut should be ashamed to have someone write such evil words,” he tweeted. “What Nick & Pri have is Beautiful Love. Thank u, Next.”
Joe’s fiancee Sophie Turner, who also served as one of Chopra’s bridesmaids, also joined in on the attack on the article, writing via Twitter that, “This is wildly inappropriate and totally disgusting. Very disappointed that The Cut would give anyone a platform to spew such bulls**t.”
The offending article was eventually updated — with sections of the article, most notably the line referring to Chopra as a “scam artist,” edited out. However, the backlash proved to be too much for the website, and the article was eventually removed completely.
In an editor’s note on the page that originally led to the story, an apology was published that read:
“Upon further editorial review, we found this story did not meet our standards. We’ve removed it and apologize.”