Some of Gawker’s properties are apolitical, like the car blog Jalopnik, but others are definite liberal (like the website Jezebel). Gawker media’s most avowed enemies are also solidly right-wing.
Not only that, but they went full announcement on why they were deleting it and included the blackmail and the name of the person being blackmailed all over again. So it wasn’t even a deletion, just a restatement in other words.
The article was such a poor judgement call, especially its strange narrative of the escort being a victim of Geithner’s. The article was written as if the CFO had done something wrong to this righteous victim of oppression, calling the escort “a veteran with PTSD” who was not to be “fucked with”. He’s a BLACKMAILER. He’s the fucking bad guy!
I feel bad for the CFO’s wife and kids, but for all I know the couple have some kind of arrangement. Anyway literally millions of rich corporate types cheat on their wives. It’s not a worthwhile news story.
I’m a little out of the loop I guess. But isn’t this sort of thing published all the time? I feel like everytime I look at the magazines at the counter, it’s about people cheating on their spouses, or rumours about people cheating.
The controvery around this particular story is:
-
The CEO in this story isn’t exactly a public figure. His brother is a public figure, but he is not.
-
The gay angle. The story is being seen as gay outing rather than an old fashioned salacious kiss & tell.
-
The attempted blackmail by the person who eventually sold/leaked this story to Gawker.
- It doesn’t sound like this guy was particularly invested in anti-gay causes. (At least I assume if he was, this would’ve come up in this thread by now.)
The other interesting aspect to this is that Gawker has been running a ton of stories lately about the shitty journo practices of both Vice and Buzzfeed (two competitors).
They then turn around and run a story that should have never been published and then pull the story (something they have criticized Buzzfeed for). I cannot imagine they can ever get back into the business of criticizing journalistic standards or ethics after this. Their commentariat will bring this up every time.
It will also be interesting to see if their new union can protect the guy who wrote this. He should 100% be fired as there is no way he can ever contribute to the site again (in his current capacity).
the only thing Gawker really seems useful for is if you need to be reminded every week that John Oliver said something.
It’s amusing that the editorial staff was so tone-deaf given how much of their readership seems to be made of of younger, “social justice” style readers.
From a journalistic standpoint, it makes about as much impact on me as Us Magazine reporting on some celebrity’s secret affair. Gawker Media is a clickbait rag.
not all of it. as mentioned, Jalopnik certainly isn’t, nor io9 or Gizmodo ever since Brian Lam left and they grew up. the only reason I see anything from Gawker proper is because they relentlessly promote “trending” stories across all of their sites.
Sure, I’ll admit that most of my exposure comes from the Gawker/Jezebel/Kotaku side of things. I don’t remember Gizmodo being better but I haven’t visited it in a long time. I don’t hear anything about Jalopnik or io9 so they must be keeping a lower, less clickbaitish, profile.
There is a website offering a “$2,500 finder’s fee for career-ending information on #Gawker writers. If you can prove a crime, 5K”.
They claim to already have already heard from one Gawker exec’s mistress. This should be interesting.
I read the story shortly after it was posted (I happened to be looking for something else on Deadspin at the time and they had linked it), and as I read it, the part that made me uncomfortable was the assisting-blackmail angle. I’m about 98% certain they’d have posted the same story if it was a female escort; I think with the social dynamic of being outed, there would have been further room for debate there, but it’s not an automatic condemnation. I’m also not too sympathetic to the lack of public interest argument, particularly since we’re talking about something that is illegal (solicitation) vs. something that is merely salacious. Siblings-of-famous-people is also not exactly untrod ground, and while often (usually?) crappy, I don’t have a ton of trouble applying it to capitalist celebrities instead of Hollywood ones, as long as Gawker doesn’t mind being viewed in the same category as the magazines at my supermarket checkout aisle. Helping fulfill a blackmail attempt is really, really shitty though, and the bottom line is that I wouldn’t have published the article.
That said, I also wouldn’t have pulled it once it was out there, and I understand the reaction of various Gawker Media employees to the removal.
(Incidentally, Gawker is much better than Buzzfeed, even if the main site is pretty trash and I wish Kotaku would just disappear. Some of the sub-blogs range from interesting to legitimately good. Buzzfeed, on the other hand, is everything that is wrong with the internet in one place. I don’t actually have any opinion on Vice.)
Jalopnik is pretty narrowly car-focused, so if that’s not one of your interests you won’t see much of them.
Gotta disagree here simply for the fact that Buzzfeed actually does some real journalism and actual ‘reporting’ from time to time. Gawker does none. 0.
Craggs and editor in chief Read resigned today, still acting completely oblivious to any criticism.
I don’t have much of an opinion on Vice’s current events style reporting (and a glance at their front page right now does look clickbait-y) but their essays on topics like “We visited this nearly abandoned village in the Urals” or “These Somali fishermen wish the pirates would leave” are usually pretty interesting stuff.
Couldn’t promise the same for “I love my World of Warcraft virginity for my fiancee’s amusement” or “This woman has been on vacation for three years”.