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

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.

Thread of Max Brod Hate

Kafka would have burned the manuscripts himself if he really wanted them destroyed imo

a chilling portent of nothing

― Merdeyeux, Monday, July 20, 2015 3:40 PM (25 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

~~~~~lyfe~~~~~~

new thread title

Kafka would have burned the manuscripts himself if he really wanted them destroyed imo

not gonna rehearse this here but he burned an estimated 90% of his work so it's not really a stretch to say he hoped his bro would burn the other 10% for him

“This is Nick’s Reichstag fire,” Craggs, Gawker Media's executive editor, told staffers.

oh good nazi analogies

gawker only exists for its customers (readers) - without them it doesn't work. now if advertisers had forced the retraction of that article, that would be a different thing, but gawkers readers were in practically unanimous agreement that the story should absolutely not have been published. and since the editors didn't seem to care that their customers did not want this kind of story, denton stepped in and removed it. i understand the whole firewall thing but i also think the money guy stepping in was totally called for, and it was definitely an extreme case.

this is hardly the beginning of a 'slippery slope', since gawker has published plenty of junk over the years without consequence from upper management.

i'm totally in awe that this hasn't been a wake up call to all those involved in pushing the article forward. instead they've doubled down, which is just .... ugh.