hey gawker dudes. what the fuck is wrong with you?

where is lag∞n

yeah i'm comfortable calling a stranger dumb but nothing about their brain beyond that without a doctor's note (xp)

his annual spirit quest ? xp

The article stated that the escort was suffering from PTSD, by his own admission. Maybe 'mentally ill' isn't quite correct, but it seems fair to say he's suffering from a mental health condition.

was wondering that myself xxxp

Maybe whether it was an ongoing extortion would depend on whether the escort thought he was still capable of stopping Gawker from publishing if Geithner, once made aware of their involvement, agreed to make some phone calls on the escort's behalf. That would have been a smart decision, because it's at least possible the story could have still developed into something closer to actual corruption or at least malfeasance involving a government employee. But while the escort claims Geithner belatedly acquiesced, there isn't even a screenshot as proof - given everything else about the story, why should anyone believe that he did?

That's why it was interesting to me that when defending the story in a private email to another journalist, max added one thing to the defense he made on Twitter (the one Greenwald and others demolished) - he personally vouched for Geithner's agreement in the scheme.

look no need to defend armchair diagnosing the guy... let's just not do it. his past does come into question as to why jordan thought it was a good idea to work with him though and the whole "they didnt realize it was this much of a fuck up!" thing speaks to their entitlement.

damn son

― (•̪●) (carne asada),

he's never been shy about his hatred of me and given me abuse. Karma.

unfair imo

i just mean, the mental state of the source isn't relevant tho, the article shouldn't have been published whether he was functional & lucid or floridly schizophrenic

i don't he or max realized at the time what a huge fuckup it was

― flopson, Friday, July 17, 2015 6:06 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

or, apparently, now

you're right, ps. just another "wtf were you thinking" aspect to the whole thing to pile on the rest.

xxp It will often be relevant to the question whether conduct met the legal definition of a crime met the definition of extortion, but I agree with your point otherwise.

maybe they will realise their mistakes and hopefully become better people out of it.

That's why it was interesting to me that when defending the story in a private email to another journalist, max added one thing to the defense he made on Twitter (the one Greenwald and others demolished) - he personally vouched for Geithner's agreement in the scheme.

Even if there was a screenshot of him "agreeing to the scheme," I actually don't think that's the same thing as actual, real corruption. In a desperate situation, telling a stranger blackmailing you that will try to talk to the president is many, many steps away from actually going to talk to people in positions of power.

I guess what I mean is, just because he told the person "blackmailing" him he would help, it doesn't mean he actually did help or was planning on helping. For all we know his next conversations were with his wife and his lawyer, or with no one at all.

That's a good point also.

if you have the stomach for it: chuck johnson (yes, the real actual worst guy on the internet) got a hold of the escort and he does indeed sound like a paranoid chemtrails infowars lunatic (politically, not on a mental health level)

johnson's take is that the whole conde nast story is a hoax but frankly i only skimmed it and won't be going back.

i should say, got a hold of someone claiming to be. chaki's pic up there does lend it some credence.

ftr i think a story like this hangs on the notability of the subject, and since he was not, there's no real justification.

i'm all for assumed hostility to anyone making more than x5 the median wage, and yet...

From this

Top Gawker editors and a number of other journalists, including some from The Huffington Post, were on hand at the party. One attendee, Capital New York’s Peter Sterne, noted in his site’s morning newsletter that Gawker editors were "glued to their phones" and seemed “genuinely surprised” by the overwhelmingly negative reaction to the story.

Feel like Gawker/Sargeant mixed up "we know who this guy is" with "this guy is a public figure whose personal life deserves serious scrutiny."

Gawker editors were "glued to their phones" and seemed “genuinely surprised” by the overwhelmingly negative reaction to the story.

feel like that's sort of a deeply resonant thing here -- these bros are legit surprised that everybody is repulsed by this, but instead of investigating that they're going to go straight into defensive crouch; they won't learn anything, everybody else will be stupid for their wrong ideas about what journalism is, etc etc

Grasping for a truth-to-power justification is just so tiresome; you're not Seymour Hersh in 1969, dudes

closer to Seymore Butts amirite

@petersterne
Scoop: Gawker is taking the Geithner post down.

well whaddaya know

I noticed an odd shift in the idea of 'public figure' with the gamergate stuff - they would claim that zoe quinn was a public figure, which I thought was absurd.

Gawker, he declares, will always “report on married <...> executives of major media companies fucking around on their wives.” What about when the cheating executives are women and the spouse is a man? He doesn’t say.

In fairness, it's pretty clear from reading it that this isn't a Profound Ethical Policy that reveals Max as a misogynist - it's "what do I have to excuse today?" - it says wife because this guy has a wife.

do you actually think you would have seen the tweet "we will always report on married executives of major media companies fucking around on their husbands" though?

stay tuned!

why is major media company executives' infidelity newsworthy idgi

it's not.

http://nick.kinja.com/taking-a-post-down-1718581684

http://adamweinstein.tumblr.com/post/124342415120/goodbye-to-all-that-gawking

I believe this public mood reflects a growing recognition that we all have secrets, and they are not all equally worthy of exposure.

oh DO TELL

It's like watching a strident-but-naive college freshman learn life lessons the hard way.

I believe this public mood reflects a growing recognition that we all have secrets, and they are not all equally worthy of exposure. I can’t defend yesterday’s story as I can our coverage of Bill O’Reilly, Hillary Clinton or Hulk Hogan.

one of these things is not like the others, two of these things are kinda the same. can you guess which thing is doin' his own thing? now it's time to play our game! it's time to play our game.

If that's the kind of thing Max thinks should "always" be reported on I'm just not going to be reading gawker anymore. I really don't get it.

well i guess that's fixed, cool

what the hell @ all of this

In the early days of the internet, that would have been enough. “We put truths on the internet.” That has been the longstanding position of Gawker journalists, some of the most uncompromising and uncompromised on the internet. I cannot blame our editors and writers for pursuing that original mission.

it's kinda cool he's taking responsibility rather than shrieking like Jimmy Stewart at the end of Rope

lawsuits if not a criminal investigation may still be comin, but just saying

John Cook ‏@johnjcook 1m1 minute ago
I and a lot of my colleagues argued as strenuously against it as we could, and we lost.

John Cook ‏@johnjcook 1m1 minute ago
Jordan’s post was solidly in line with what Gawker has asked its writers and editors to do for years.

“You didn’t have to tweet,” the response came.

I didn’t really know how to reply to that,

Sounds like you might be Gawker material! (rimshot)

i don't exactly see anyone claiming responsibility here, given the assertion that this sort of story would have been okay to run in years past; that it's the times and public sentiment that've changed. such bullshit.

If that's the kind of thing Max thinks should "always" be reported on I'm just not going to be reading gawker anymore. I really don't get it.

that's the thing - from the sound of it, Max is the guy whose position is "fuck all of you, this is a good scoop"

so is john cook

https://twitter.com/johnjcook/status/622115408842235904

That Weinstein post is a tough read.

On top of how repugnant it is btw, it's not even a good scoop!

all that "apology" needs is a "i'm sorry if you were offended"

John Cook ‏@johnjcook 1m1 minute ago
Jordan’s post was solidly in line with what Gawker has asked its writers and editors to do for years.

― lag∞n, Friday, July 17, 2015 6:50 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

denton's take-down note acknowledges this!