Gawker article outs a private citizen

Post removed. Shockingly, Craggs was the only one in management who voted against the article's removal.

The gesture probably doesn't mean much at this point. I'm sure they'll enjoy the clicks associated with this removal as well.

Gawker Is Removing Story About Condé Nast CFO

 

Never thought I'd link to a Daily Caller piece, but they located and interviewed the escort, who has some...interesting ideas.

Interview With The Gay Porn Star Behind That Gawker Article | The Daily Caller

 

One of the most interesting parts of the story.

 

Craggs should resign in protest.

 

This is why places like Gawker finally fall apart.

Posts like this.

Yeah, it makes me smarmy by Scocca's standards, to disapprove of such horseshit. Better smarm than this passive-aggressive nonsense.

 

Clock is still ticking on gawker going away. There was nothing newsworthy or in the public interest.

It also made gawker complacent in a crime. Between this and hulk hogan, they ain't going to last.

 

Gawker staff is ticked. I'm sympathetic to unions, but not to Gawker's editorial standards.

 

Mrs. Geithner, 26 years old, graduated from Holy Cross College. She is a network-television time buyer at Young & Rubicam, the New York advertising agency. Her father is a senior partner in the New York law firm of Kelley Drye & Warren. The bride's grandfather the late John V. Mara was an owner and the president of the New York Giants, the football team founded by his father, Timothy J. Mara.

 

The escort is from Texas, so he's one of Cruz's constituents.
The article also said Cruz's office tried to help the escort -- going as far as to contact the director of HUD personally -- because he wanted to help a veteran suffering from PTSD. Cruz's office later called the escort and told him there was no meat to his complaint.

 

I still can't believe they haven't named the escort -- the guy who was trying to perform extortion -- but continue to name Geithner in every "apology" story they're publishing.

 

It makes sense when you accept that Gawker staffers are horrible people.

 

Here's the thing, no matter what the cool kids on the interwebz think, the person who owns the joint has the final say as to what goes in the publication.

In this case, Gawker had a committee and they voted to take it down.

It really isn't hard.

They can cry about editorial independence all they want, but it, like free speech, has its limits.

If they don't like it, they can always resign.