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

@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.

this whole thing is weird to me because i gathered the defense of The Article rested ultimately on the tabloid justification since time immemorial: that they are just providing the public with what it wants. the public tends to want to read about infidelity, especially if it comes with a twist, and you are a chump if you take a pass when a story like that lands in your lap. you can agree or disagree but it's an argument. it's what newspapers have traditionally done, it's the sort of thing reuters was founded on. that and gruesome deaths. yes readers spoke out against it but a great many read it as well - "polarizing" material is the stuff tabloids are built on.

but then comes this noble idea of an unbreakable firewall between ownership and editorial? come on. i mean, hats off if that's really how gawker operated but i think this whole episode has made abundantly clear that if you skate close to the edge the way good tabloids do you need to have an intimate understanding of ownership's position. and if ownership turn around and change their minds then it's all in the game.

I guess everyone at Gawker is taking the day? There hasn't been a fresh post there since the 12 o'clock hour.

My takeaway from all of this is that the people arguing up thread "you don't understand how journalism works" appear not to have understood how journalism works

xp maybe that's one hell of a meeting

truth bomb xp

“We reveal what’s really happening without restraint, inhibition, or ulterior motives,” the document states. “We’re fearless in sharing our own perspectives — regardless of how unconventional, unpopular, or unexpected they may be. We tell the real story...of seven strangers...picked to live in a house...work together and have their lives taped...to find out what happens...when people stop being polite...and start getting real...Journaljism.”

The gawk is the gawk.

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

the fact that this has not happened before is not proof that it is not the beginning of a slippery slope.

yes, i think it is

The Awl: Hills To Die On, Ranked

irl lol Sufjan G

xxp ok

hasn't the sanctity/existence of business/editorial wall been acknowledged as not existing anymore/never existed in the first place since a million thinkpieces circa willes taking over the la times in 97? they might as well be having a temper tantrum over finding out santa claus isn't real (which would be fitting since nearly the entire staff has believed in santa claus more recently than willes taking over the la times in 97). i can't think of another tabloid that pretends to maintain that integrity but then i can't think of another that seems to genuinely believe publishing revenge porn will prevent another war in iraq (i guess chuck johnson hopes that publishing revenge porn will start another war in Iraq). it's like they woke up this morning and found out they're whores and figured 'well maybe if i stomp my feet enough i'll turn into seymour hersh'. the checks cleared a long time ago, you're bought and paid for.

https://twitter.com/AdrianChen/status/622927194487177216

@AdrianChen
@Choire has gawker............. jumped the snark?

At one point, writer Bill Arkin wanted to know what would happen to the rest of them. Craggs and Read didn’t have answers. “This is not helpful!” Arkin yelled, according to a source.

lol. dude, when you emerge from your hissy fit, maybe consider that the guys who just quit the company are not the best people to go to for those answers.

Hey! Divorce is hard for kids

its even one of the main headlines now

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/20/gawker-editors-quit-removed-post

they might as well be having a temper tantrum over finding out santa claus isn't real (which would be fitting since nearly the entire staff has believed in santa claus more recently than willes taking over the la times in 97).

lol

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.

― Johnny Fever, Monday, July 20, 2015 1:13 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

So the answer is, you have no actual idea who was for or against what. Just checking

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.

― just1n3, Monday, July 20, 2015 4:31 PM (55 minutes ago)

this is a great point. i think denton was motivated in part by the optics wrt the ongoing hogan case, but yeah

hey deej i wonder if you saw this tweet it wasn't mentioned in any of the articles of conversations about this event https://twitter.com/max_read/status/621855300509925376

xp yeah i'm not a lawyer but i've watched a lot of law & order isn't there a thing about demonstrating a pattern of behavior?

whose lol-ling @ lawyers now, huh?!

If there was a controversy about a particular post, it's not like it's going around the company for lots of people to read and be upset by before it runs. I mean, I assume, because that would make no sense. If there was a "controversy" about what was published, then it was probably among top level editors who actually looked it over. I have no idea if max is pro or con and to what degree based on that tweet, though; it wouldn't surprise me if someone could be against publishing but once the post is made you abide by the vote and support your writer's work, no matter how misguided an article might be

For all I know craggs was opposed and outvoted, or Leah, or whoever else. I don't know, and I'm not trying to make up excuses for them! I'm just saying Johnny fever's mind reading is probably bullshit

you know deej all those things you're not sure about actually have answers in the record, if you'd been following along

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.

― just1n3, Monday, July 20, 2015 4:31 PM (55 minutes ago)

consumers of a free service aren't the "customers," they are the product. the people paying money are the customers; what we have been able to glean from these statements is that advertisers were willing to walk away over this.

i don't really see the distinction between denton stepping in and the advertising people doing so

guys face it we will never understand how journalism work even when it's being dissected right in front of us

works

there's like 3 dozen right thing/wrong reason dealios (and vice versa) in this whole mess

I have been following along, although not to this thread which is almost as embarrassing as the original article

guys face it we will never understand how journalism work even when it's being dissected right in front of us

― Most Scientifically Beautiful Face (President Keyes), Monday, July 20, 2015 4:39 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Who's talking about "how journalism works"? I'm talking about people assuming they know what happened in a closed door conversation because they are confident they've figured out the Bad Guy

anyway nothing has changed really. you can debate the journalism ethics blah blah all you want those are just lamestream media rules right which rhymes w/ pools which starts w/ a p which rhymes w/ t which stands for the times sold bush lies to promote a war in iraq. maybe ppl had convinced themselves that max (or even jordan lol) were decent guys and that they did what they had to do journalism's a tough racket and the bad stuff allows the good stuff to happen or whatever and are disappointed to find out that they think the bad stuff is the good stuff and that max was just a more hygenic chuck johnson. gawker will be a better read now, jordan's not untouchable (let's remember that whatever offense in terms of journalistic 'ethics' as opposed to being a decent human being ethics occurred it probably isn't as bad as nick sylvester) and can still write about migos for pfork or whatever, max will write some david brock type 'how i lost my soul to clickbait - and how i found it' piece for the awl or n+1 or whatever garbage site and get a job somewhere better than gawker, nick denton will remain swine only now maybe his writers won't buy his bullshit so completely.

this post is haunting me:

but the whole line of argument is "this person is not a celeb, and so this is not newsworthy otherwise well fair game".

so some of my discomfort is "well, if rich executives who don't seek the public eye explicitly are not considered 'newsworthy', maybe they should be?"

like to me in some sense, the idea that people with a certain amount of money will as a matter of course fly hookers out to vegas and pay them thousand of dollars for weekend flings, that's sort of interesting and... maybe not what people think of the world?

imho it does inspire sort of a "burn babylon burn" reaction but i know that also comes with reactionary moral ideas as well. it feels like the intention is "they tell us this is wrong, but then they go do it." and you say "but is a cfo who i've never heard of one of 'them'?"

and this is where, in a sense, my answer is... yes?

― where the sterls have no name (s.clover), Sunday, July 19, 2015 5:38 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

max's after-the-fact defense of the post is on the main story from today: http://gawker.com/tommy-craggs-and-max-read-are-resigning-from-gawker-1719002144

it's not ambiguous that he remained fully supportive of publishing

xxpost just fyi

can't believe deej was wrong and or wrongheaded on ilx omg

he will really grasp onto whatever feeb nonsense he can there's no quality control which is really the theme of the whole story

well deej you've expressed uncertainty over 1) how many eyeballs, and whose, saw the story before it was published, 2) whether max defends publishing the story on the merits, and 3) how the vote went down. all of these things are public knowledge at this point. hence people not really taking your recent posts too seriously

unlikely i'd guess but i wonder if high profile calls to 'block gawker on yr facebook feed' played any role. losing advertising is one thing and easily recovered from but that's almost losing yr medium, far more of a chilling effect than usual ad boycott. thinking in terms of 'facebook ruined the internet' debate.