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

oh good, another idiot to FP

if everyone wants to rally around the well connected media exec who moves in the circles of power

...gotta say this reminds me of allovasudden people finding the "decent" reason to trounce ellen pao.

i like how these could be applied to those attacking denton or geithner

altho, if everyone wants to rally around the well connected media exec who moves in the circles of power, then i guess there's not much more to be said.

don't see anyone rallying around nick denton tho?

lol xp

This was obv not an outing. Here is one reason why: he might not be gay. He might just like to screw male escorts on occasion. Iirc, the story did not say "here is a gay man". It said "this man attempted to hire a male escort."

how finely would you like these hairs split, monsieur

jesus fucking christ sterling clover is fucking out of it...

out or out

this is obv not the ideal post for the gawker editorial staff to line up behind in defense of the firewall, but i'm not surprised at all that they're lining up.

i'm like 8% on board with agreeing to a class-war justification for ruining a rich guy's life

but this whole "oh isn't it kind of HETERONORMATIVE to equate trying to pay for gay sex with being gay" line is totally bonkers. buddy what world are you in?

like if the intent of the article -- to ruin a guy's career over soliciting an escort for gay sex -- isn't patently obvious to you then idk what to say xps

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

finally someone starts asking the tough questions

the well connected media exec who moves in the circles of power

I don't think "brother of Obama functionary" is quite the same as "moving in the circles of power"

i don't think dc poltics are the circles he's referring to

bring back the max r blog

good ass kinja

Joan Crawford Loves Chachi
Posted: July 17, 2015 at 4:15:20 PM
horrified by the unity in horror at this, yeah
actually this is the single most interesting thing to me in the whole process right now -- that a bunch of capable, in some cases very good writers are banded together in such an obviously, transparently odious position that everybody, absolutely everybody knows they're wrong...and we have direct experience that some of these bros are reasonable people with the ability to sort through complex questions in a sober and mature way...and what they all arrive it is "no wai, free speech, we get to publish what we want, imagine the slippery slope if we don't out some guy for no reason at all"

agree this is very interesting tho i believe its been said that there were gawker ppl who didnt want to publish the story, the real unified front is more abt how it was taken down, then when u consider that ppl tend to behave defensively when attacked its maybe not as weird or interesting as it first seems

what def is interesting is how absolutely everyone agrees that publishing the story was wrong, feel like this sort of consensus is rare outside of like ppl opinions of chuck johnsons or something

wldnt be surprised if the key players views shift once theyre out of the maelstrom and have time to reflect

That shift will probably speed up after they're working elsewhere.

hfs, the spectacle of this statement from editorial

agree this is very interesting tho i believe its been said that there were gawker ppl who didnt want to publish the story

A handful of non-editors, yeah

kinda disappointed in my man lag∞n -- in whom i place a fair bit of trust media-criticism-wise -- focusing on the definitions of blackmail and extortion, which are, after all, essentially beside the point. as is par33ne's series of tweets arguing that it wasn't done for pageviews because happy fluffy stories are what earn clicks

do u think it should have been posted?

Hmm ok in one of the politburo comments it says not all editors were on board, mea culpa

http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/exclusive-interview-with-the-gay-porn-star-behind-that-terrible-gawker-article/

pareene is absolutely right that the article wasn't driven by pageclicks. In large part because the person they were reporting on wasn't famous or noteworthy at all. Unless the aim was to get pageclicks by sheer force of reprehensibility.

you have to complete the thought - why DID you post the horseshit if it wasn't for financial gain?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/fashion/how-being-outed-as-gay-lost-its-power-to-shock.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/booming/the-changing-rules-of-outing.html

because there is no privacy and all info must be set free?

"i'm not at my job because i want a paycheck. if all i wanted was a paycheck i would have become a lawyer, they make so much more money."

i mean between max's recent defense and nvc's tweet and the group editorial response, they are rejecting all guidelines in favor of making everything possible public

i don't think two pieces in the times makes them the authority on what is okay or not okay for a journalist to say about a private individual.

hey sterling clover, fuck you and your shitty display name

i do look forward to these righteous truth-seekers finding an outlet that will pay them to write any and everything they want with no interference tho!

hey sterling clover, fuck you and your shitty display name

― sleeve, Friday, July 17, 2015 8:31 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

u dont even have a display name loser

stop being a douchebag.

There are so many people on ilx I can't keep everyone's personality traits separate. Has Sterling Clover always been a dickhole?

nah just on this thread, but hey shots were fired at my dn so all's fair, right?

off topic question (but hey, probably good to get off this topic, eh?): how many writers/editors/designers work at gawker? If they fold, how many people lose their jobs?

Well, considering the shameful way get bent was run off from ilx, maybe those shots were deserved. Grow up.

ok here's why i had the display name, because apparently i had no idea this would mean something else?

i had a dn jacked from some carles post ( umami (mild bleu cheese vibes) ) . then get bent showed up like 1 mo later with the same display name and i said "hi that's my name" and was told "ok but i'm not changing mine."

so uh i picked that name instead?

i literally know nothing else about any backstory that might mean people read it differently? so apols if it can be seen as referring to anything else, and i'll change it because this was getting stale anyway.

i.e. if i'm gonna be a dick, it should be for reasons i intend

wait whoa what happened to get bent??

She was mansplained to death in the Runaways thread and decided to leave altogether.

christ

what a day

i probably should've assumed something horrible was happening in a Runaways thread on ILM

i . . . don't think that's quite the case, but it is certainly true that she is a+++ and missed

Wait waht i followed that whole runaways thread and did not get that impression at all

It was more of a final straw thing, especially when the poll about white straight male posters was created on ile. It seemed like a directed jab. (Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but there's no reason to stay somewhere if you don't enjoy it anymore.)

wait whoa what happened to get bent??

― resulting post (rogermexico.), Friday, July 17, 2015 8:00 PM (48 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

srsly, what the shit??

I wasted too much of my day reading and thinking about gawker.