8 years ago
15
Top Gawker editors resign following removal of controversial post
Gawker Media Executive Editor Tommy Craggs and Gawker Editor-in-Chief Max Read are stepping down from their posts at the company, stating that they can no longer guarantee Gawker's editorial integrity after the company's management — not editorial — removed a controversial post on Friday. The post, which reported that Condé Nast CFO David Geithner had allegedly attempted to rendezvous with a gay porn star for a night in a hotel, was widely criticized for needlessly outing Geithner.
Continue Reading
http://theweek.com
Additional Contributions:
-
+8Submitted 8 years ago by idlethreat
-
+7Submitted 8 years ago by BlueOracle
-
+2Submitted 8 years ago by AdelleChattre
-
+2Submitted 8 years ago by AdelleChattre
Join the Discussion
[This comment was removed]
I didn't see the original article, but from the description, Gawker's management team was right to remove the post. I don't understand how anyone can view the outing of a private citizen as gay as news. At best it's unimportant drivel, at worst, it's internet harrassment and bullying.
If the CEO were a public figure, and therefore expects aspects of his life to be made public it's one thing, but a random CEO is not a Kardashian or Hilton or even a politician. Why was an article written about him seeking a gay prostitute? How does that affect the millions of readers of Gawker and viewers of Conde Nast's products?
The issue is that many journalists feel they have a sacred right to publish whatever they feel the public should know about, rather than being at the whims of some third party. This generally extends to the not editorial staff, so the feeling here is that it is not correct for "business people" to make editorial decisions about what gets published.
But why remove it in the first place? It's already been posted...
I'm only speculating but maybe it's important that the management sends a message, both to the public and their own staff, that this kind of reporting isn't something they tolerate. I thought the original incident was pretty shameful of Gawker in the first place so perhaps someone was trying to make amends?
The president of gawker dissented against taking it down, one of the two votes to keep it...
Oops, misread it. Thanks for the correction
Because lawsuits can be expensive. I don't know if the victim would win the lawsuit, but litigation costs money and reputations.
So they didn't leave because they are part of a terrible "news" site, but because the boss took down their terrible "article"? I'm undecided whether it should have been taken down, but what a shitty reason to leave. I hope Geithner sues the ever loving SHIT out of gawker. Him & Hogan will take them down (hoping Hogan will on his own though if Geithner doesn't join).
I mean, one of the guys leaving is the guy who wrote the shitty article...
I'm not sure if he could sue them. On what grounds would he be able to?
Gawker has editorial integrity? Since when?
"Can no longer guarantee Gawker's integrity" pffft! The integrity meter just went up a point with their resignation.
Gawker and associated sites have a preferred slant that would make Fox blush.