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

i think i didn't glance at slate until salon went pay model cuz of kinsley (edelstein was there after that though i think). i might be wrong though, i remember one of the first things i read on slate was the whole staff disclosing who they were voting for and alot of them straight up saying bush cuz bush would be dropping the antitrust stuff and their jobs would be saved. still miss suck.com a ton.

Denton's interview on capitalnewyork is a breathtaking concerto of hypocrisy and Nixon-esque denial. I knew this guy was a weasel but jesus.

In a gchat with Capital, Denton expanded on his thoughts on editorial freedom: "What I can't accept is an unlimited and subjective version of editorial freedom. It is not whatever an editor thinks it is; it is not a license to write anything; it is a privilege, protected by the constitution, and carrying with it responsibilities."

Denton said during the meeting that Gawker must have an official editorial policy based on the standard that stories published must be both true and meaningful, not merely true. Gawker cannot publish gossip like Page Six does, he said.

"Gawker’s supposed to be better that that. It’s supposed to be good gossip, it’s supposed to be juicy gossip, it’s supposed to be revealing gossip. ... I’m not saying we should never do these stories, but there has to be a point, and there really wasn’t a point to justify Gawker running this," he said.

In the past, Denton denied that Gawker writers were journalists, preferring to refer to them as bloggers. But now he's embracing the label and some of its ethical considerations.

"We actually have to recognize that we are journalists. Some measure of newsworthiness is appropriate," he said.

This may be a major departure from the editorial philosophy that animated 2007-era Gawker, but Denton wants everyone to stop living in the past.

"I’ve been told that there’s a lag, some of my ideas from seven years ago are still being treated as sacrosanct when I’ve actually moved on," he said.

is he thought of as a smart person?

jealous that ppl can afford to resign over principles this half-assed tbh

Yeah this. I've worked for companies with seriously bad practices, and customers in some cases (oil/mining conglomerates ruining PNG farms and suchlike). I couldnt even voice my concern let alone quit over it. I got mouths to feed.

jealous that ppl can afford to resign over principles this half-assed tbh

and vaguely interested to see whether john cook will 'sell out'
--mookieproof

jealous of most people who have the necessary financial cushion to resign on principles period

kinda really fucks the whole "we're going after the affluent" argument right in the gallbladder

I'm not saying people shouldn't resign or protest or otehrwise stand up for their core beliefs, that said.

is he thought of as a smart person?

In New York media world, successful = smart. Whatever logical circumlocutions are necessary to reach the conclusion that someone with more uniques than you is somehow a genius will be performed with a smile.

so

story nobody seems to think should have run
loads of ppl against story in-house (or so its hinted but no real figures?)
story runs
loads of readers against story
mgmt pull story
x amt of editors against pulling of story (how many editors does a gawker type site need rly idk)
gawker considers the above process an outrage and cries all weekend

anything else?

― irl lol (darraghmac), Monday, 20 July 2015 23:35 (Yesterday) Permalink

fucking finally, someone puts it in language I can understand! thanks darragh

Being unable to distinguish between 'i'm employable' and 'i make roughly half a mil a year' is sorta dumb imho

jealous that ppl can afford to resign over principles this half-assed tbh

Yeah this. I've worked for companies with seriously bad practices, and customers in some cases (oil/mining conglomerates ruining PNG farms and suchlike). I couldnt even voice my concern let alone quit over it. I got mouths to feed.

― I checked Snoops , and it is for real (Trayce), Monday, July 20, 2015 8:45 PM (46 minutes ago) Bookmark

same :(

max made roughly half a mil a year?

Avg cfo total comp. at CN dude prolly makes way more tbh

wow good for max

max made roughly half a mil a year?

plus bennies

Well he needed something to keep him awake editing all those weblog posts

bennies are v helpful for diagnosing and treating what the hell is wrong with gawker dudes

annnnd this thread is rapidly turning into grotesque parody of the abyss into which it has for too long stared, I'm out, thanks again to darraghmac for providing the capsule version (which I was for so long asking, to no avail)

oh god never even thought about the bennies. what an oversight!

i thought ours was the adderall generation

What kind of suite did Max have

wow good for max

― balls, Monday, July 20, 2015 9:43 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes balls, max, a cfo at conde nast who attempted to hire a hooker and fly that hooker to vegas, was swimming in cash. #peoplewhoknowhowtolive

i'm glad we all now agree it was heroic of nick denton to expose him.

(the reason the term c-suite is around btw is basically that these people traditionally have their own suite of offices that nobody else can go into and these offices look nothing like the other offices, and the people in these offices mainly only talk to other people in these offices, or people who don't get to be in these offices but must visit these offices to report to the people who do. and these people have special people they hire to arrange conversations if necessary to others who they wouldn't normally talk to, because they won't even talk to you without a rep present to translate if you are a few too many reporting levels down. just in case anybody is actually baffled by 'the white collar world: how it work')

sorry if caring about this shit went out with occupy.

i.e. 'i'm too important to take a meeting w/ you' ppl

- THAT'S WHERE I COME IN

xp and therefore this is a worthwhile story to report because.......(I feel like you are on the verge of the punchline here)

^^^ obviously cares not a whit abt class struggle

look i'm all for the downfall of the obscenely wealthy, i just don't think repessive sexual mores should be brought to bear towards that end. extramarital, gay, & sex work are the triumverate of cardinal sins here, but who cares and why should they?? hail satan.

class warfare tactics should only target individuals who are abusing their power and privilege. it shouldn't target rich people for reasons that have nothing to do with their position.

imo

no treeship, they're perverts you see, we obviously need to mount their bollocks on pikes

class warfare tactics should only target individuals who are abusing their power and privilege. it shouldn't target rich people for reasons that have nothing to do with their position.

And there it is.

There are hundreds if not thousands of high-priced prostitutes in New York City. Guess who hires them: rich people. I'm sure you could easily find another three or four dozen "scoops" on random rich people who have hired prostitutes with minimal effort, if that's really such a laudable goal.

let's allow moral panic to drive the revolution, though, that'll be really liberating for everyone

There are hundreds if not thousands of high-priced prostitutes in New York City. Guess who hires them: rich people. I'm sure you could easily find another three or four dozen "scoops" on random rich people who have hired prostitutes with minimal effort, if that's really such a laudable goal.

If you can, I'm sure the Post will pay...

but it's brave tho if they are sleeping with media robber barons who are enemies of another media robber baron (who seems to think every other person at his level is the enemy, as do his staffers), those are the ppl really the ones destroying the middle class and systematically raping the poor

(xxxp)

*the ppl really destroying

I'm not defending the story as important or necessary. I'm just not going to defend this guy as a 'an anonymous innocent'.

To be fair the New Yorker probably does pacify a potentially revolutionary segment of the bourgoisie with its soporific quasi-liberal rambles.

Basically i think denton finally realized he actually does have more in common with geithner than his employees..

Meaning a small shred of human dignity?

gee ya think xp
http://www.thesquander.com/gawkers-ceo-nick-dentons-net-worth/

holy mackerel

those figures seem pretty dubious

what are you talking about iatee, they're on the internet

whether geithner is an innocent or not, the original post targeted him for his sexual misconduct & no other misdeed, as far as gawker was concerned that was enough to merit publication. that and, how convenient! he worked for a direct competitor & rival of gawker media. if you want to pretend the tactic of outing people is fair game and playing to an audience's prurient scorn is without consquences or wider repurcussions then good luck and god bless

I'd hazard a guess many of his employees ain't exactly in the struggle. just sayin. not that they're rich, necessarily - no idea what gawker salaries are bc they only expose their sworn blood enemies' shit salaries (vice) - but something tells me truth to power w/the intent of damning the rich is not the real motivation. and it doesn't have to be, really, if they own that they are a tabloid with flashes of greatness, but be honest u know

to be totally fair I think craggs basically has owned and sort of reveled in the essential tabloid nature of the site in public before now (and is definitely doing so now) but idk if the average writer there is capable of owning that they're m/l freddie lounds

replace the victim of your article with "French Stewart." if your article is now more interesting, do not publish!