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

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!

many xposts to goole

i guess what i was trying to get at is: e.g. gawker publishes a story about idk a repubican candidate who is anti lgbqt and is caugth hiring a male sex worker, and an a bunch of advertisers demand gawker pulls the story or they'll pull their advertising; then imagine that the readership is very pro this article (and the advertisers make no money if a site publishes stories the majority think are disgusting), but gawker pulls the story and the readership revolts and stops reading gawker. that is a fucked up situation bc you all make money - the publisher and the advertisers - if you have a good readership.

then you have this situation where gawker published an article that was not newsworthy and can also be read as having shades of gay-shaming, and the readership revolts against the article. since they are the reason gawker and its advertisers make money, why WOULDNT you take it down? that's the practical side. then there's the moral or ethical side, or human decency issue of why would you publish something that is basically just spiteful and humiliating to the subject, for no apparent reason?

tl;dr the readers are the customer because the publisher is trying to sell something to the advertisers and the advertisers are trying to sell something to the reader.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Denton#Life_and_career

Denton was featured in the Sunday Times Rich List 2007 in position #502 with an estimated wealth of £140m (approximately $290m) based on the sale of his previous companies and the current value of Gawker Media.

I mean even if not reliable, maybe he's only worth eight figures? Doesn't that very possibly make him richer than the CFO of Conde Nast and does it even matter at that point?

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')

― where the sterls have no name (s.clover), Tuesday, July 21, 2015 2:33 AM (54 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I am hopping mad over here, let's tear this shit down

I mean even if not reliable, maybe he's only worth eight figures? Doesn't that very possibly make him richer than the CFO of Conde Nast and does it even matter at that point?

― five six and (man alive), Tuesday, July 21, 2015 3:33 AM (25 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

but it's easy to get into Denton's office suite!!

I am hopping mad over here, let's tear this shit down

― Matt Armstrong, Monday, July 20, 2015 10:34 PM (58 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

#WEWANTAMEETING

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

tbh I figure the Gawker business model was built around paying their people peanuts. 60% of the main Gawker page was reposting things from Facebook and Reddit, 30% was commenting on other places that repost stuff from Facebook and Reddit and 10% (maaaaybe) something resembling journalism.

People like Max and Jordan are essentially replaceable cogs - if Gawker skips a beat from here on out it will be because management is redefining their standards and it will take a minute for everyone to fall in line.

The Jalopnik guys maybe do the most 'reporting,' insofar as they drive cars and review them like normal automotive journalists.

Otm