July 17, 2015

"Gawker is no longer the insolent blog that began in 2003.... This story about the former Treasury Secretary’s brother does not rise to the level that our flagship site should be publishing."

"The point of this story was not in my view sufficient to offset the embarrassment to the subject and his family. Accordingly, I have had the post taken down. It is the first time we have removed a significant news story for any reason other than factual error or legal settlement.... But this decision will establish a clear standard for future stories. It is not enough for them simply to be true. They have to reveal something meaningful. They have to be true and interesting. These texts were interesting, but not enough, in my view. In light of Gawker’s past rhetoric about our fearlessness and independence, this can be seen as a capitulation. And perhaps, to some extent, it is...."

Writes Nick Denton, reacting to intense criticisms. 

ADDED: TPM says:
[T]here was apparently a clear difference of opinion about removing the post between Gawker's parent company, Gawker Media, and the website's editorial brass. Gawker staff writer J.K. Trotter wrote that Gawker Media's managing partnership, which includes its legal counsel, actually had voted 5-1 to take the much-maligned article down over the protests of "every other member of Gawker Media’s editorial leadership."...

The website's editor-in-chief, Max Read, had defended the article's publication by arguing that the executive was fair game by virtue of his position with Condé Nast and the fact that he solicited a male escort while being married to a woman....

But Denton seemed to side with those journalists who had complained on Twitter that outing the executive wasn't truly in the public interest.

24 comments:

TRISTRAM said...

I suspect there was a call from some 202 area code, along the lines of 'Nice website you have there. Be a shame if something happened to it. I have a pen and a phone...'

Followed by a panicked call from Mr. Denton's personal accountant, 'I just got a call from the IRS...'

Fen said...

Means all Gawker staff are now fair game.

Good. Goose. Gander.

richlb said...

From the closing sentence of the letter:

"But it is motivated by a sincere effort build a strong independent media company, and to evolve with the audience we serve."

Doesn't anyone proofread anymore?

Matt Sablan said...

Want me to be honest?

I think Gawker is just too dumb to realize they weren't dealing with the former Treasury Secretary, who a lot of folks on the left and right are not very happy with.

Matt Sablan said...

And then, by the time they reached the point they had the wrong guy? Too far in, might as well pull the trigger.

Chris403 said...

I wonder what Hulk Hogan thinks about all of this?

Wilbur said...

What were the general thrusts of the complaints? The political sympathies of the subject? Or just general disgust at the relevation? Would the complaints have been similar if the subject was a CFO for a Koch Bros business?

Matt Sablan said...

My understanding is that it was foul because they attacked someone who wasn't involved. It's like accidentally hitting the brother who isn't part of the family business in the shoot out. He's not a legit target.

Unknown said...

Would the complaints have been similar if the subject was a CFO for a Koch Bros business?

Google "gay republican outed," then see if you remember any of the multiple stories creating outrage.

Known Unknown said...

"My understanding is that it was foul because they attacked someone who wasn't involved. It's like accidentally hitting the brother who isn't part of the family business in the shoot out. He's not a legit target."

Yeah, he's a private citizen, and this is basically a non-story. But he works for Conde Nast, who owns Reddit. Gawker doesn't like Reddit. Add that up.

The Gawker story is also written by Natasha Vargos-Cooper, who uh, has had journalistic integrity issues in the past.

Ted Cruz is also involved, as he tried to initially remedy Ryan's housing issues. It's a simple "you're a constituent, so I'll put in a good word" thing, nothing more, though.

David said...

So I'm safe from Gawker?

Great!

Static Ping said...

Yeah, it is not really a story of any significance. If he had actually gone through with the prostitution scheme and was arrested then it might be a modestly interesting local story and fodder for the police blotter/trade magazine. If this was 50 years ago the "married man in gay sex" angle would be scandalous, but not so much today. It's hard to imagine any serious news source spending any amount of time on "man cheats on wife" stories unless the man and/or wife in question were public figures or the news source was actually a front for a blackmail ring.

It appears the objections to the story come mainly in two camps. The first do not like the privacy/blackmail angle to it. The second object to the idea that since this proposed affair would be gay that the only reason Gawker ran with this was "OMG gay sex" and they find that offensive.

Not sure where I rank that on the absurdity meter for the week. Probably in the thirties somewhere.

lgv said...

"They have to reveal something meaningful"

S***, there goes 95% of the internet and 100% of Gawker.

Fen said...

What were the general thrusts of the complaints?

It would be like if someone was pissed at Althouse but couldn't get her fired, so they go after Meade to screw up his life instead, knowing it would hurt Ann.

Basically "be careful or your loved ones will get hurt"

Gawker should get a visit from Karma.

BarrySanders20 said...

Garage should support this. A gay Republican was the start of John Doe 1 when Walker's staff reported irregularities in the finances of a charity run by a staffer. The emails and info collected in that John Doe led to the now infamous John Doe II and all its abusive fascist secret (but not any more) glory.

You never know. This expose might lead to the discovery of those secret routers.

Anonymous said...

Click Bait site posts crazy click bait, then more click bait in the form of an apology. They'll post a link to that apology on the main site for more click bait.

Ann fell for the click bait.

Sam L. said...

Gawker better be careful or they'll be as respected as the NYT.

furious_a said...

post taken down"

Damage already done.

furious_a said...

It's like accidentally hitting the brother who isn't part of the family business in the shoot out.

It's like David Letterman making statutory rape jokes about Sarah Palin's younger daughter. Inadvertency apparently exculpatory.

furious_a said...

Ted Cruz...being nice to gay people...again.

holdfast said...

The untrimmed bush of an alleged witch could not be reached for comment.

I feel like Laslo today.

DarktheKnight said...

As an executive at a crappy media company, everything Max Read does is fair game.

I hope someone hires a PI to track his every move 24/7 and publicize them.

Bad Lieutenant said...

You like to play word games, professor. If they are no longer insolent, what are they? Solent? Deferential? Toadying?

Matt Sablan said...

On the bright side, the next time they out someone they don't like, they can put up a veneer and say: "See! We took down that OTHER post, so you know this one is legit!"