Gawker To Remove 'Gay-Shaming' Post That Set Internet Aflame

[cal04]

Gawker plans to remove an article that many said had needlessly "gay-shamed" and had a role in allegedly blackmailing a publishing executive, according to media reporters Peter Sterne and Michael Calderone.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gawker-remove-gay-shaming-post


Voted 5-1 to take it down
http://gawker.com/gawker-is-removing-story-about-conde-nast-cfo-1718582003

Gawker Is Removing Story About Condé Nast CFO
(snip)
Yesterday evening, Gawker.com published a story about the CFO of Conde Nast texting an escort. It was an editorial call, a close call around which there were more internal disagreements than usual. And it is a decision I regret.

(snip)
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.

Every story is a judgment call. As we go forward, we will hew to our mission of reporting and publishing important stories that our competitors are too timid, or self-consciously upright, to pursue. There will always be stories that critics attack as inappropriate or unjustified; and we will no doubt again offend the sensibilities of some industries or interest groups.

This action will not turn back the clock. David Geithner’s embarrassment will not be eased. 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. But it is motivated by a sincere effort build a strong independent media company, and to evolve with the audience we serve.
http://nick.kinja.com/taking-a-post-down-1718581684

[B2G]

1. Too fucking late.

Damage done.

Gawker is horrendous.

[MADem]

2. QUICKLY, QUICKLY--lock the barn door, now that the horsies have galloped away!

They already got all the clicks they were gonna get, because people were being directed away from their site towards a mirror, so as to not give them the traffic.

Call me a cynic, but they wrung that one dry, and keeping it up longer would have just increased their "Hey, now, we're assholes!" quotient.

If there's a contested divorce, will someone from GAWKER be called to testify?

[Rex]

5. So it was just click bait for ratings?

I don't read GAWKER unless linked here, but it looks like a crap commercial site at best, made by a 5 year old that loves pop ups.

[MADem]

6. That's my guess--and now they're getting more clicks from the

"We decided to take it down/non-apology apology" they're running. There are a TON of comments (pending, so they are a bit gray but you can read them) on the topic, running heavily towards disapproval. That said, every commenter has clicked, absolutely once, maybe twice...!

[Number23]

20. Do you think that the Geitner guy will sue?

This was so totally unnecessary. On Jezebel, every single thread wound up talking about this story and most of us were just gobsmacked that not only that someone considered this a story, but that it was published.

What was the point of this piece? Geitner was not a politician, he was not trying to dictate or control anyone's life.

[MADem]

24. I don't see that happening (him suing) at all.

Everything that was reported was "mean" and a bit 'revenge-porn-y' without the porn (except for the pixilated picture of that guy's shlong that, it turned out, wasn't a 'live shot' a la Anthony Weiner but a picture he lifted from a website--I assume it was his but who knows...?). Problem is, it was also true and accurate and completely vetted. They had it all--the source, the texts, the photos, the phone numbers--and the guy, being a boss at Conde Nast, is a public figure of sorts, albeit a minior one -- with a brother who is a more major player in the federal gov't.

Yeah, I agree with you--it was a pointless story, but there was no untoward privacy violation (legally speaking--morally is a totally different story, of course).

The porn star escort does seem a little loony, though--he's a freak for conspiracy theories. He's also a right winger! Talk about voting against your interests!

I don't know if it was a pissy fight between the boss at Gawker and this guy (maybe an "I'm out and you should be too?" thing...or some other "personal" difference...or maybe a professional one--Conde Nast is more respectable than Gawker, that's for sure...) or they were just looking for clickbait because, hey, SEX SELLS!

We'll see how this shakes out--I'm sure if Mrs. G. files for divorce, we'll know she wasn't a party to any kind of "open" marriage. He has three kids --not sure of their ages but since he has been married for twenty three years, they're probably not infants....probably high school/college age. This will be difficult if they had no clue.

[Travis_0004]

26. On what basis?

Truth is always a defense to libel, so if the story is true, they had the legal right to publish it.

It doesn't mean they should have, but legally they had the right to.

[Prism]

3. That horse is so far from the barn, it's vacationing in the Bahamas

The damage is done. The names are out there. The Internet is forever.

Only firings will assuage this. Starting with the author who wrote it and the editor who approved it.

Anything less is insincere.

[MADem]

8. Unlikely to happen, based on what the boss of that joint is saying.

He is saying the problem is an editorial one--that the story was well sourced, well written, accurate...but just not "important enough."

Also, I think the head honcho at Gawker, Nick Denton, is gay, so there will be no playing the "hetero disapproval" card.

This is just down to salaciousness, with maybe a touch of a "revenge porn" flavor, without any naked pictures (of anyone other than the prostitute, that is--and he is heavily pixilated).

A rumor is already floating that this whole thing was a "set up"--that the porn star was somehow encouraged to entrap this guy and reveal the texts; or that someone else was involved in working the con (the 'naked picture' was not an original snapshot, it was apparently from a website); I'm not quite pulling the string on the reasoning, though.

You know how the internet is--if there's a story, there's a conspiracy theory.

[Prism]

9. Potentially professional rivalry

Given Max Read's tweet: "given the chance gawker will always report on married c-suite executives of major media companies fucking around on their wives", this could be been seen as an attack of opportunity on competitor Conde Nast.

It bothers me that they looked at the escort's facebook page and figured the man was mentally all there enough to run the story.

You're probably right about the firing, though. Sigh.

[MADem]

10. Apparently the escort is an extreme right winger...talk about voting against one's interests!

There's more than meets the eye....

[Prism]

12. Texas gay men can be . . . an interesting breed.

I've known a few who, despite being open about their sexuality, maintain conservative politics and the lifestyle/culture of the right-wing rural areas of the region

Then again, I have no idea if that openness extends to home. My interactions with them have been in San Francisco or Chicago.

[B2G]

13. Has he been identified? How do you know? nt

[Prism]

15. The escort has since done an interview with the Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/exclusive-interview-with-the-gay-porn-star-behind-that-terrible-gawker-article/

Once his name surfaced in the comments of the original Gawker story, people tracked down everything about him, including his Facebook page. The guy is a right-wing nut.

[B2G]

16. Thanks. Sounds like a total whack job. Nt

[former9thward]

21. Your link indicates he is a CT nut.

Including being a 9/11 truther which many here espouse.

[CreekDog]

25. So what? Some here agree with CT crap, so the rest if us can't point it out?

Last edited Sat Jul 18, 2015, 04:21 AM - Edit history (1)

There you are as usual attempting to invalidate a criticism of anything conservative.

[MADem]

17. Yes, he has been identified. The story gets weirder and weirder by the moment.

If you go to the website of that right wing asshole who used to wear bow ties and his first name rhymes with "Fucker" he has an interview up with the duplicitous little blackmailer.

Both his 'stage name' and his real name are published there. What is also revealed is that he ostensibly has PTSD and had a service animal, and Ted Cruz's interest was to help a "vet" -- apparently he didn't realize that the vet was in business of renting himself out by the hour....the guy also is a freak about conspiracy theories....

[B2G]

19. Hard to believe Gawker didn't know this

Before they published.

Hope they get the shit sued out of them.

[former9thward]

22. There will be no suit.

Truth is an absolute defense in a defamation suit. The guy is a guy escort. That is it.

[Liberal_in_LA]

14. agreed.

[jeff47]

4. Golly, you mean helping an extortion plot might not be a noble cause? (nt)

[951-Riverside]

7. Fire Jordan Sargent

Fire this smug right wing shill, he's the piece of garbage who wrote the article.

[Blue_Tires]

11. They should have shown this level of discretion before publishing...

[WIProgressive88]

18. Meh.

Glad they (eventually) decided to do the right thing, but this whole episode just shows that while Gawker may claim to be on the side of tolerance and progress, those values take a backseat when it comes to generating clicks. Shame on them.

[romanic]

23. Clickbait before common decency.

Never liked Gawker and i never will after this crap they pulled.