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.
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?
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.