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

If you piece together the tone and details of their resignation letters and the whispers that many people in editorial all over the Gawkerverse were against publishing the story, it seems like to me they were on some kind of blind crusade to get it out there. I mean, how is it not clear? There obviously wasn't anyone higher up pushing them to do it. They can fall on their swords all they want, but even people in the org, BEFORE it was pulled down, were telling them it was a bad move.

nick's post is understandable from a business perspective but if i were an editor, i'd have no faith in my independence.

I think a line needs to be drawn between taking down a post because it was requested by an advertiser or took too hard a look into a Gawker Media business partner or something along those lines (the Buzzfeed situation that Gawker delighted in covering) vs. the owner going "oh shit posting this is going to make everyone stop reading us, we ought to backtrack."

While the latter is interference with the editorial side for 'business reasons' I think a distinction can be drawn between the two situations. Management/ownership is within its right to interfere when editorial has possibly doomed the publication.

understood that geithner was highly placed in the corporate structure but its still a reach to say that he was relevant to the editorial direction of CN or a figure of public interest outside of the ny media landscape. i think it's disingenuous to say that gawker media's managing partners' response to this story proves anything about a similar situation at CN or justifies gawker running the story in any way. to be frank i find the editorial umbrage taken by max et al. to be a convenient deflection from the ethical issue at hand. i hate slippery slope atguments as a rule but the question remains of whose personal life is relevant to the public interest. what exactly is the standard to be applied?

yeah CFO is strictly business side even at a media company

Update, 1:48 p.m.

Jezebel editor-at-large Jessica Coen forwarded the following email she received from Nick Denton in January 2014 (when Coen was serving as editor-in-chief of Jezebel) to Gawker Media’s editorial listserv:

From: Nick Denton
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:37 PM
Subject: This is the opposite of our policy
To: Jessica Coen
Cc: Joel Johnson

jezebel.com/trans-woman-commits-suicide-amid-fear-of-outing-by-spor-1503902916

If the author believes this, she’s working at the wrong place. And should be guided to a more congenial work environment. We’re truth absolutists. Or rather, I am. And I choose to work with fellow spirits.

[Quote from post linked above] “Issue two is the reporting on the trans status of the subject. This is much clearer: Don’t out someone who doesn’t want to be out. The end. Everyone has a right to privacy when it comes to their gender identity or sexual orientation, and beyond this, the trans status is not relevant.”

i have no doubt nick denton is full of shit and a raging hypocrite, and i could see how that matters in this situation if anyone was actually being punished by him for the piece

As recently as six months ago, Denton was intimating that outing athletes as trans was not only okay, but a company mission, and anyone who thought otherwise should be writing someplace else. So I'm starting to see now why maybe the editorial group at Gawker feels blindsided by getting their story removed, but this doesn't make me any more sympathetic. Instead, it makes me more curious why anyone would want to fucking work there in the first place.

there's a huge difference between taking something down (which imho should never be done except under legal requirements) and leaving something up but with a big note.

in a print paper you can't unprint a story. digital pubs should abide by the same principle.

see, e.g.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/vice/2001/06/monkeyfishing.html

i understand and respect that, but that doesn't seem like the compromise editorial is asking for

pulling the thing down denied a discussion and hashing through of what should and shouldn't be printed, that's why there's a response.

what have i been reading if not the discussion

Denton should have kept the article up and fired those responsible if he felt a correction was needed. There shouldn't be a breach serious enough that you need to take down the article but not serious enough to have no consequences for those responsible. nb I feel like it's very likely Denton was entirely motivated by the Hogan trial where this article could be evidence of general irresponsibility on the part of the company.

With the waybckmachine just a click away does it matter whether it was pulled down?

i understand and respect that, but that doesn't seem like the compromise editorial is asking for

― da croupier, Monday, July 20, 2015 2:28 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i think there would have been frustrated argumentation etc if the thing was left up but with a big note disavowing it from denton & co., but not the same response at all. That sort of note isn't unprecedented and basically it happened at some point in the gamergate fiasco i think? (although they weren't even apologizing for a story but for biddle making fun of gators on twitter).

while i get the philosophical/ethical distinction between leaving it up with a note and deleting it, and in theory agree the former is preferable, he can't ACTUALLY remove it from the historical record. it's not like he shredded the files.

let's not pretend that taking the post down unfucks anything for anyone. i dont necessarily agree that the post should have been taken down once published, i just dont consider the craven ass-covering of gawker's managing partners to be relevant whatsoever to the merits (or lack) of the original story

nb I feel like it's very likely Denton was entirely motivated by the Hogan trial where this article could be evidence of general irresponsibility on the part of the company.

― Mordy, Monday, July 20, 2015 2:31 PM (2 minutes ago)

yup. he said so himself at the end of his post today

Where has Caity Weaver been btw...she hasn't posted anything in a while and someone mentioned her in response to Adam Weinstein's piece on how Gawker reverse-ghosts ppl instead of firing them. They wouldn't do something dumb like get rid of her right?

editor

On ye olde internet, gawker even got mad at folks for taking down stories:

http://gawker.com/157903/get-yer-retracted-voice-cover-story-here

Has "it's about ethics in tabloid journalism" become a counter-meme yet?

If being an editor takes away from her writing then bad decision imo

Wonder what Spy would have done with this. Blind item?

lol spy wouldnt have gone near this "story" - due to moral compunction but careerism. different times to say the least.

@anamariecox
So is Gawker going to publish the Ashley Madison list?

not due to moral compunction. spy editors had their eyes on the main chance, don't you doubt it

i think you should be able to do whatever you want to your webpage. especially if you pay for it. take down whatever you want. do whatever you want to it. don't think it really matters much.

AM leak is amazing btw

37 million clients, dang

that has to be bullshit though right??

Treeship
Posted: July 20, 2015 at 11:23:23 AM
Gawker and Jezebel always seemed like the flagships. They're definitely my favorite ones to read even though I also hate them.

lol

1 in 10 americans

musically
Posted: July 20, 2015 at 12:41:14 PM
If being an editor takes away from her writing then bad decision imo

yeah the whole media advancement system where the best writers stop writing is... bad

It operates in other countries. But yes, sounds highly inflated. xp

yeah the whole media advancement system where the best writers stop writing is... bad

― lag∞n, Monday, July 20, 2015 2:51 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

if only there was a site to fearlessly champion this view http://gawker.com/against-editors-1623198702

Ashley Madison will turn out to be 36 million Russuan scammers and 1 million horny dudes.

i signed up for it just to find out what kind of people signed up for cheating websites

they're a lot less pretty than people who sign up for dating websites

but they're more horny

i am on ashley madison and LEMME TELL YOU there are not 37 million people on it

lo j/k i am not on ashley madison

lol xp

Ashley Madison will turn out to be 36 million Russuan scammers and 1 million horny dudes.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Monday, July 20, 2015 2:57 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yea i imagine this is the case lmao

im excited to see what new site the dissenters are going to come up with. all the patrick batemans of the world are going to be stoked.

suspect a strong % of the AM userbase are dummy emails on abandoned trial memberships

where the sterls have no name (s.clover)
Posted: July 20, 2015 at 12:53:57 PM
yeah the whole media advancement system where the best writers stop writing is... bad

― lag∞n, Monday, July 20, 2015 2:51 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

if only there was a site to fearlessly champion this view http://gawker.com/against-editors-1623198702

lol i know

i signed up for it just to find out what kind of people signed up for cheating websites
― j., Monday, July 20, 2015 6:58 PM

'it told me i had to put a naked selfie up'

the website made me bone

@anamariecox
So is Gawker going to publish the Ashley Madison list?

I suppose it depends on whether a secretly-gay Buzzfeed controller is among their users. Otherwise, I don't see how it would be newsworthy.

i vaguely recall max and underrated aerosmith disagreeing about whether or not max brod should have published kafka's works, in retrospect a chilling portent of things to come (unless i've misremembered that, in which case it was a chilling portent of nothing)

There were several people in that thread arguing against aerosmith, but max read wasn't among them.