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 Gawkers 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 Geithners 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. His writing has also appeared in the New York Times, Wired, GQ, Newsweek, and Mother Jones. The point of this story was not in my view sufficient to offset the embarrassment to the subject and his family. Adam Weinstein is a senior writer for Gawker and editor-at-large for the Trace. This story about the former Treasury Secretarys 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. A few days ago, gay site, Gawker in league with porn model Brodie Sinclair (pictured above right) posted a long and sordid tale about the CFO of a major. I cant defend yesterdays story as I can our coverage of Bill OReilly, 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 yesterdays piece from readers intense, but much of what theyve 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. I think hope that I still have some good years of writing and reporting and editing ahead of me, but whatever form that future takes, it will be a far sight from sharing blog space with storytellers and solid human beings like Cord Jefferson, Adrian Chen, Camille Dodero, and. It concerns a senior business executive at one of the most powerful media companies on the planet. To steal a tired line from an old dead writer: Gawker in 2013 was a very special time and place to be a part of. 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. ![]() ![]() Many are wondering whether Sargent’s post spells the end of Gawker Media, which is currently embroiled in a high-profile lawsuit involving Hulk Hogan and a sex tape.Īs “cbabgeae” commented beneath Sargent’s original post, “Jordan basically admitted to being accessory after the fact to a felony, helping to blackmail and extort someone… Basically, if sues, Gawker is finished, as are all of its writers, since he can probably make a good claim for individual liability too.Yesterday evening, published a story about the CFO of Conde Nast texting an escort. Given the chance gawker will always report on married c-suite executives of major media companies fucking around on their wives - max read July 17, 2015īut even some of Gawker’s writers have come out against the story, like senior writer Adam Weinstein: Voices coming out in defense of the article are few and far between, and many of them happen to be Gawker staffers, like its Editor-in-Chief Max Read: Smells like someone just took a huge in here. The dilemma of wanting to make a few points about the repugnant Gawker story & their “justification” but not wanting to give it attention… - Glenn Greenwald July 17, 2015
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |