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

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

some self-aggrandizing puffery about their supposedly fearless journalists who publish hard truths that others are afraid to touch

Judging by some of the responses from gawker writers/editors, it's hard not to admire Denton's ability to get his people to truly believe this line of bullshit

i feel like a couple of the people expressing shock that a human being could post something cruel, stupid, or ill-advised on the internet could use a gigantic dose of self-awareness

just saying

it's hard not to admire Denton's ability to get his people to truly believe this line of bullshit

Cult leaders are frequently quite charismatic.

I'm confused about Denton going on about "truths" when this story doesn't have any credible source or evidence. Looks like they got clowned by a crazy person who fabricated the whole thing. Hilarious.

xxp

the difference is people here cant ruin other peoples lives

oh can't they

i don't think it's all that likely that the whole thing was completely fabricated, i don't think that's the general public feeling, although certain aspects of it are a little fishy and it doesn't seem like everything was thoroughly vetted to remove doubt.

here we go guys

https://twitter.com/Nero/status/622058014930038784

Milo Yiannopoulos Verified account
‏@Nero

My thoughts on Gawker will be up in a little while

xpost The whole thing is fishy as hell! But if it's actually true then Gawker is a participant in a blackmail scheme.

For a small gratuity I am willing to reveal Milo's thoughts ahead of time.

genuinely surprised it was taken down tbh

yea treating this like a source reliability problem and not a gross ethical breach is shooting wide of the mark imho

i know this is incredibly presumptuous but cld some summarize for me im actually not clear on what happened

the opening paragraphs of greenwald's piece are a fair summary if you don't want to go the article itself

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

i think this is basically true. there was a period where nobody took gawker seriously and they sort of celebrated that. not saying it was good or bad, just... they're trying to play a different role in the pecking order of publications (in large part i think because of the continuing death of print, etc)

like there was a time when pitchfork was this weird thing on the internet full of quirky stunt reviews and then the print kingmakers faded and pfork said "hey, wait, i guess we are in a different position now and should produce content accordingly."

this is going to be a... not painless process.

tbh i don't see a damn thing remotely homophobic about the piece and i don't see how the dude is not a public figure, but i also don't see why as a story it is anything but tabloid sleaze.

he's not a public figure

being in management in non-editorial side of nyc media and having a brother who served in the cabinet just doesn't add up to 'public figure'

Gawker participated in the blackmailers scheme and protected the blackmailer's identity.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122325/has-gawker-decided-stop-being-gawker

Since other people’s sex lives are always interesting and Gawker’s journalistic purview includes media culture, under Denton’s rule it is justified in reporting on the sex life of anyone who works in publishing in any capacity. And it's worth noting that these have not just been Gawker's rules of journalistic engagement, but that have much of the media. The New York Times among many, many media outlets, both old and new, covered the resignation of another media executive after his sexts with an escort were published by Business Insider. As Gawker editor-in-chief Max Read tweeted: “given the chance gawker will always report on married c-suite executives of major media companies fucking around on their wives.”

Read’s words were not just a display of bravado but an accurate reflection of how Gawker operates.

goole
Posted: July 17, 2015 at 2:24:34 PM
the opening paragraphs of greenwald's piece are a fair summary if you don't want to go the article itself

does gg not understand that blackmail actually requires the info to remain secret? like the point is not to out the person but to get money

this is not a comment on the central issue just on greenwalds take

tbh i don't see a damn thing remotely homophobic about the piece

― got bent (mild cheezed off vibes) (s.clover),

then you are a really dense person that doesn't understand the world around them. try reading the dozen articles pointing out exactly why if you can't wrap your head around it.

That's the key. Maybe this is a story worth telling (it isn't!), maybe it isn't (that's what I said!), but J0rdan and max chose the wrong side here. Instead of turning it into a blind item about a small-time escort/porn actor trying to blackmail an unnamed media exec, they facilitated a blackmail attempt. Good journalisming, guys!

xxp There's no contradiction there; the escort may have foolishly believed - j0rdan may have encouraged him to believe - he could keep Gawker from running the story if Geithner acquiesced. The Gawker story's phrasing of how the coming story publication was revealed to the victim ("Ryan believed that David deserved to know he had gone to the press" iirc?) was very likely disingenuous and self-serving.