LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+65 65 0
Published 3 years ago with 16 Comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • [Deleted Profile]

    [This comment was removed]

  • Kalysta

    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?

    • skolor

      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.

    • FurtWigglepants

      But why remove it in the first place? It's already been posted...

      • collude

        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?

        • FurtWigglepants

          The president of gawker dissented against taking it down, one of the two votes to keep it...

          • collude

            Oops, misread it. Thanks for the correction

      • Inconceivable

        Because lawsuits can be expensive. I don't know if the victim would win the lawsuit, but litigation costs money and reputations.

  • Jupiter7

    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).

    • Bossman

      I mean, one of the guys leaving is the guy who wrote the shitty article...

    • GeniusIComeAnon

      I'm not sure if he could sue them. On what grounds would he be able to?

  • madjo

    Gawker has editorial integrity? Since when?

  • Boudicca

    "Can no longer guarantee Gawker's integrity" pffft! The integrity meter just went up a point with their resignation.

    • zerozechs

      Gawker and associated sites have a preferred slant that would make Fox blush.

  • Francopoli

    If Gawker is burning, can we throw Buzzfeed on the pyre and fan the flames a bit?

Here are some other snaps you may like...