Executive editor Tommy Craggs, who helped edit the post, was the sole dissenter.
Today the managing partnership of Gawker Media voted, 6-1, to remove the post. JK Trotter, Gawker's resident "Shep Smith is gay" journalist, posted an interesting insight into the decision making that went on behind the scenes: But it is motivated by a sincere effort build a strong independent media company, and to evolve with the audience we serve. In light of Gawker’s past rhetoric about our fearlessness and independence, this can be seen as a capitulation. These texts were interesting, but not enough, in my view. They have to reveal something meaningful. It is not enough for them simply to be true. But this decision will establish a clear standard for future stories. David Geithner’s embarrassment will not be eased. This action will not turn back the clock. 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. 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. It is the first time we have removed a significant news story for any reason other than factual error or legal settlement.Įvery story is a judgment call. Accordingly, I have had the post taken down. The point of this story was not in my view sufficient to offset the embarrassment to the subject and his family. This story about the former Treasury Secretary’s brother does not rise to the level that our flagship site should be publishing. It does important and interesting journalism about politicians, celebrities and other major public figures. Gawker is no longer the insolent blog that began in 2003. And Gawker has an influence and audience that demands greater editorial restraint. We are proud of running stories that others shy away from, often to preserve relationships or access.
I can’t defend yesterday’s story as I can our coverage of Bill O’Reilly, Hillary Clinton or Hulk Hogan. I believe this public mood reflects a growing recognition that we all have secrets, and they are not all equally worthy of exposure. Some of our own writers, proud to work at one of the only independent media companies, are equally appalled. Not only is criticism of yesterday’s piece from readers intense, but much of what they’ve said has resonated. I cannot blame our editors and writers for pursuing that original mission.īut the media environment has changed, our readers have changed, and I have changed. “We put truths on the internet.” That has been the longstanding position of Gawker journalists, some of the most uncompromising and uncompromised on the internet. In the early days of the internet, that would have been enough. It concerns a senior business executive at one of the most powerful media companies on the planet. The story involves extortion, illegality and reckless behavior, sufficient justification at least in tabloid news terms. It was an editorial call, a close call around which there were more internal disagreements than usual. Yesterday evening, published a story about the CFO of Conde Nast texting an escort. Here was Nick Denton's unusually contrite statement on why they took it down: Today, Gawker did something unprecedented and took down a truly vile post it did on the CFO of Conde Nast (you can google it because we are not linking to it).
0 kommentar(er)
