Filed to: ANNOUNCEMENTS 7/17/15 2:29pm Yesterday, Gawker published a post about the CFO of Condé Nast attempting to pay a gay porn star for a night in a Chicago hotel. Today the managing partnership of Gawker Media voted, 6-1, to remove the post. Executive editor Tommy Craggs, who helped edit the post, was the sole dissenter.
The vote to remove the post, which was written by staff writer Jordan Sargent and edited by several other Gawker staffers, comes after widespread criticism from our own readers and other outlets. Along the Craggs, every other member of Gawker Media’s editorial leadership, including Gawker’s editor-in-chief Max Read and the executive editors of Gawker Media’s Politburo, strenuously protested removing the post.
Besides Denton, the partners who voted to remove the post were Heather Dietrick, who serves as President and chief legal counsel; Andrew Gorenstein, who serves as the president of advertising and partnerships; chief operating officer Scott Kidder; chief strategy officer Erin Pettigrew; and chief technology officer Tom Plunkett; and chief executive officer Nick Denton, who founded Gawker Media in 2002. Along with Tommy Craggs, they belong to Gawker Media’s managing partnership, which Denton established in 2014 and whose members decide on all major company matters.
“The point of this story was not in my view sufficient to offset the embarrassment to the subject and his family,” Denton wrote in a lengthy statement issued on Friday afternoon. “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.”
Post by thejackpot on Jul 17, 2015 16:12:24 GMT -5
Wow, it is so awful that this guy was outed. A quick Google search revealed his identity and he is well connected. Further, if the porn star only went to Gawker because he was upset that he didn't get what he wanted from his escort isn't it yucky that Gawker helped him humiliate the guy.
i'm fascinated by this....I'd love to hear more opinions & discussion.
Is it just b/c of the blackmail aspect that this is perceived as unethical? Is there a difference between a public (business) figure vs. a public (political) figure vs. a celebrity? I guess I'm trying to understand how this is different than all the allegations the tabloids are always making (other than this is actually true??).
It's such an interesting contrast to the Ashley Madison thread & most people are like "fine with cheaters getting busted". Does it also have something to do with the outing of his sexuality?
i'm fascinated by this....I'd love to hear more opinions & discussion.
Is it just b/c of the blackmail aspect that this is perceived as unethical? Is there a difference between a public (business) figure vs. a public (political) figure vs. a celebrity? I guess I'm trying to understand how this is different than all the allegations the tabloids are always making (other than this is actually true??).
It's such an interesting contrast to the Ashley Madison thread & most people are like "fine with cheaters getting busted". Does it also have something to do with the outing of his sexuality?
I can't say I'm all that vested in either, but I think the distinction for most is the public business figure v. political/celebrity figure. I'd think it was crossing a line for a political figure who didn't yammer about "family values"/oppose LGBT rights or a celebrity. Those things happen anyway, of course, but I don't feel like it's my business who anyone screws unless it's a politician who attempts to legislate who and/or how other people screw. The only person I can imagine who would really care about this is wife...and for all we know, she already knew, in which case, this is quite awful.
i'm fascinated by this....I'd love to hear more opinions & discussion.
Is it just b/c of the blackmail aspect that this is perceived as unethical? Is there a difference between a public (business) figure vs. a public (political) figure vs. a celebrity? I guess I'm trying to understand how this is different than all the allegations the tabloids are always making (other than this is actually true??).
It's such an interesting contrast to the Ashley Madison thread & most people are like "fine with cheaters getting busted". Does it also have something to do with the outing of his sexuality?
Dan Savage had some interesting thoughts on this very topic:
Dan Savage ✔@fakedansavage So everyone outraged by what @gawker did to that one guy is equally outraged by what hackers are doing 37m #AshleyMadison customers - right?
I got a lot of pushback like this from my followers:
Steffani Cameron @snarkysteff Not really. Partners they're cheating on didn't consent. Not a ton of sympathy. Hackers suck, but so do cheaters.
Now, I know that Gawker is a news site that does journalism (yes, they do journalism), and that as journalists they're held to a higher standard—by themselves and others—than a bunch of anonymous hackers. But the violation is exactly the same: People who may or may not have been cheating on their spouses are going to be outed, their lives could be upended, their children could be traumatized. "But they're cheaters!" screams the internet. "Cheaters are terrible people! Cheaters deserve to be exposed!" This would be the same internet that just a few days ago was overflowing with a nuanced understanding of infidelity where a wealthy, politically connected white man was concerned.
That seems like a weird, possibly classist disconnect to me.
Long-term marriage, like Glenn Greenwald says, is a complicated dynamic, and people invent all sorts of ways to manage that complicated, long-term dynamic—and, yes, cheating is one of the ways people manage that dynamic. It's not ideal, it would be great if everyone who felt compelled to cheat could either negotiate an open relationship or end the one they're in now, but sometimes cheating is the least worst option. Slogging through the Savage Love mail for the last 25 years has convinced me of this: There are a lot of people out there who have good cause to cheat. Men and women trapped in sexless marriages, men and women trapped in loveless marriages, men and women who have essentially been abandoned sexually and/or emotionally by spouses they aren't in a position to leave—either because their spouses are economically dependent on them (or vice versa) or because they may have children who are dependent on both partners.
Take a woman who has two children with special needs, who has been out of the workforce for 15 years, and who is financially dependent on a husband who decided five years into their marriage that he was "done with sex" but refuses to allow her to have sex with anyone else. The marriage is good otherwise, she and her husband have an affectionate, low-conflict relationship, their kids are happy and well cared for, but sexual deprivation is driving her out of her mind and threatening both her marriage and her children's health and security. What would you advise this woman—whose letter, coincidentally enough, came in today's pile of e-mail—to do? I would advise her to do what she needs to do to stay married and stay sane. (And until this morning I might have advised her to join Ashley Madison.)
It's easy to see cheating as a morality play with clearly identifiable victims and victimizers. But as Esther Perel says: "The victim of the affair is not always the victim of the marriage."
And sometimes a discreet affair saves a marriage that should be saved.
Marriage is complicated, cheating is complicated. You know what's not complicated? Outing. That executive Gawker outed last week didn't deserve it, and the members of Ashely Madison being outed today don't deserve it either.
I only posted the 2nd half, but the whole thing is worth a read.