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

"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"...

he may be grumpily dining on interns blood right now for all i know, i just think it's odd to pretend this reads like one of those "people misunderstand us and i'm sorry they're upset" pr statements

lol yeah there are a lot of little pass agg insinuations that no it is a real story xp

it could be even LESS defensive, for sure. especially if he wasn't already in a massive lawsuit over a similar piece but whether he's admitting they crossed a line and taking responsibility because a lawyer said he should or because he took a long walk on the promenade and cried, he's admitting they crossed a line and is taking responsibility

This story - about an extremely important man - at an extremely important institution - with an extremely famous brother - was, in retrospect, perhaps, wrong to post.

it's not contempt for critics
but even he admits there's element of 'capitulation' here

acc to him, problem with story was
'not interesting enough'
'interesting' is interesting criterion
(as opposed e.g. to 'newsworthy', criterion which denton never invokes)

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

Hah, missed that 'it' here is taking the post down! Fight on you soldiers for truth and justice.

That's a shame about Fortress America. That had been a really good blog. Hope dude lands on his feet.

he's not saying they crossed a line, he saying the line moved on them

it has been pointed out that gawker has previously tut-tutted about buzzfeed removing stories at the behest of the biz side, which appears to be what just happened

agree "interesting" is a fart of a word choice and i regret that i'm now in a position where it sounds i'm saying nick deserves a hug, when i just thought some criticisms of the post felt irrespective of its content. i was arguing "could be a lot worse" rather than "couldn't be better"

and again, none of this means he won't and shouldn't expect a legal shitstorm over the post

the original, i mean. and i wonder if removing it and acknowledging the error would actually bolster a case against them

ts: denton's post vs. max/biddle's apology for 'bullying' gg

"the men with the muck rakes are often indispensable to the well being of society; but only if they know when to stop raking the muck..."

it has been pointed out that gawker has previously tut-tutted about buzzfeed removing stories at the behest of the biz side, which appears to be what just happened

― mookieproof, Friday, July 17, 2015 2:29 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Buzzfeed did it without any public acknowledgement of doing it and then denied doing it for a while iirc

I hope someone got fired for that "Deborah, the patriarch" blunder.

to be a fly on the wall in the gawker offices today, hoo boy

Ernie ‏@erndb 31m31 minutes ago
Our editorial staff was vetoed by The Managing Partners. What the fuck is happening?

xxp maybe that's just how she rules her family, with a man hand

who r the managing partners

did they veto publishing or not publishing, uninformative tweet imo

https://twitter.com/johnjcook/status/622116851024314368

he's not saying they crossed a line, he saying the line moved on them

― gwyneth anger (patron sailor), Friday, July 17, 2015 12:26 PM (15 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah, hard not to read this apology as "we didn't actually do anything wrong, people are just more sensitive than they used to be" plus some self-aggrandizing puffery about their supposedly fearless journalists who publish hard truths that others are afraid to touch

these guys should all revolt and break away to form their own company unencumbered by the stifling ethical standards of gawker

vawker

lol

Ernie ‏@erndb 31m31 minutes ago
The argument now goes far beyond whether or not the Conde CFO post should have been published. Wake up sheeple

one weird dietrick

actually it's about ethics in video game journalism.

tweets are coming from inside the navel

who is erndb

Unironic use of the word 'sheeple' should earn you a lifetime ban from writing in exchange for money imo.

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060906013253/muppet/images/4/4e/Ernie.nose.jpg

Oh wait I thought that was the famous writer erndb, my bad.

Something Called Fudge (Old Lunch)
Posted: July 17, 2015 at 1:51:06 PM
Unironic use of the word 'sheeple' should earn you a lifetime ban from writing in exchange for money imo.

uh it was actually double ironic, know the levels

ehhhhh i dont really think it was

Evidently that's just some manager-level guy who works for gawker; I erroneously thought it was a gawker writer or editor. I regret mocking it.

extremely embarrassed for ppl itt who cant even identify two levels of irony

lol aight

We're constantly operating on at least two levels of irony afaict.

I personally acknowledge minimum four irony levels in all published writing