On That Gawker Story

Gawker took hits from seemingly all corners of the Internet for publishing text messages purportedly exchanged between a male escort and a Conde Nast executive.

I see there’s a new implosion over at Gawker over the fallout from the media exec/gay porn star piece that ran, ignited a massive controversy and was later withdrawn by the site. As you know, two top editors have resigned, with a nice meal in their bellies. And from what I can tell the entire operation is in an uproar now with the editorial staff at war with management over the decision to pull the piece.

Fights with reporters and publishers over editorial decisions is something embedded deep in the DNA of modern journalism. But here is the part I truly do not understand. Whatever the process that was at work, I am bewildered that apparently the entire editorial staff thinks this was a legitimate story and that it was a mistake to withdraw it.

I cannot understand that.

There is a legitimate debate over whether the private indiscretions of public figures, which don’t involve illegality or directly touch on their public duties or work, are legitimate subjects of press scrutiny. But to take a person who by any definition is a private person (a fact that is not changed by professional achievement or a famous brother) and expose an apparently closeted sexual orientation and (unconsummated) infidelity, how do you justify that?

One of the initial statements about the story said something to the effect that the damage to the subject and his family outweighed the news value of the piece.

But what news value?

This is half a rhetorical question but more than half not. This part is bewildering to me. I genuinely do not grasp what even the notional news value or relevance of this article was. And that doesn’t even get into the fact that the publication of the piece, I think, made the publication morally, though not legally, complicit in blackmail.

So yeah, I totally get the concerns on process. Business people shouldn’t have a say on pulling a piece. Ever. On a decision this big it comes down to the editors and the owner and/or publisher (often the same person). But what seems to me to be the totally open and shut error of publishing the piece in the first place and the correctness of pulling it (though lot of good it does after the fact, in this case) makes it very hard for me to see that as the big deal here.

Dear Reader,

When we asked recently what makes TPM different from other outlets, readers cited factors like honesty, curiosity, transparency, and our vibrant community. They also pointed to our ability to report on important stories and trends long before they are picked up by mainstream outlets; our ability to contextualize information within the arc of history; and our focus on the real-world consequences of the news.

Our unique approach to reporting and presenting the news, however, wouldn’t be possible without our readers’ support. That’s not just marketing speak, it’s true: our work would literally not be possible without readers deciding to become members. Not only does member support account for more than 80% of TPM’s revenue, our members have helped us build an engaged and informed community. Many of our best stories were born from reader tips and valuable member feedback.

We do what other news outlets can’t or won’t do because our members’ support gives us real independence.

If you enjoy reading TPM and value what we do, become a member today.

Latest Edblog
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Investigations Desk:
Reporters:
Newswriter:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: