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

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!

Btw sorry if this was already pointed out, but splashing stuff like this in the media is actually victimizing his wife, not protecting her.

lol god i can't believe i'm this close to defending a nick denton post

the denton post has such a heel-dragging "i GUESS people don't WANT this kind of thing anyMORE, you JUST wanted it like LAST YEAR but OKAYYYY OKAYYYY message received JEEZ" tone to it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND7yJ7sMosk

lol otm

"we have always been awesome and because we are awesome we will now make a minor adjustment to appease you babies reflect the changing landscape of trashy journalism"

i have to step away from this debacle, i've gone beyond nonplussed and indignant to feeling personally betrayed by people i thought were decent acquaintances. like i know this has nothing to do with me but fuck these shitheads for real for real.

This action will not turn back the clock. David Geithner’s embarrassment will not be eased. But this decision will establish a clear standard for future stories. It is not enough for them simply to be true. They have to reveal something meaningful. They have to be true and interesting. These texts were interesting, but not enough, in my view.

In light of Gawker’s past rhetoric about our fearlessness and independence, this can be seen as a capitulation. And perhaps, to some extent, it is. But it is motivated by a sincere effort build a strong independent media company, and to evolve with the audience we serve.

so… if ppl would have been into they would have been fine doing it?

i honestly don't get people where people are getting the sense that denton's post is at all reluctant. hey may well be irl, but language like

But the media environment has changed, our readers have changed, and I have changed.

The point of this story was not in my view sufficient to offset the embarrassment to the subject and his family. Accordingly, I have had the post taken down.

this decision will establish a clear standard for future stories. It is not enough for them simply to be true. They have to reveal something meaningful. They have to be true and interesting. These texts were interesting, but not enough, in my view.

is pretty straightforward in acknowledging the issue and owning responsibility. and while i didn't need his defense of their other works, he IS in a lawsuit over those.

"if only more of you idiots agreed that this dude was a noteworthy public figure then it would have been fine"

"i have changed" - nick denton

i definitely understand if people are like "so what, fuck you" to denton, but it just seems like projecting to read some obvious reluctance & contempt for critics of the piece in the post

i definitely understand if people are like "so what, fuck you" to denton, but it just seems like projecting to read some obvious reluctance & contempt for critics of the piece in the post

concur, but I mean...it does seem clear it's the heat that got to him. this post didn't happen because he got introspective and said "y'know, I wanna do better"

i duno as a supposedly progressive queer male (who uses that angle non stop in his hogan defense) he sure does side step the whole gay shaming issue, which seems to be the major beef allies and advocates have against this piece.

i honestly don't get people where people are getting the sense that denton's post is at all reluctant.

"It concerns a senior business executive at one of the most powerful media companies on the planet."
"This story about the former Treasury Secretary’s brother"...