Gawker media outs rival CFO

Has Gawker gone too far this time? Posting a "story" about a person meeting up with a hooker isn't exactly Pulitzer Prize material but what happens when that person happens to be a high profile member of a competitor?

Not like Gawker ever was a bastion of journalistic integrity but too me this went too far. I guess Hulk Hogan's lawsuit wasn't enough they wanted more?

Here's the story;

https://archive.is/EUkg0

 

[That's Our Lolcow]

that's legitimately fucked up. i don't even care about gamergate and this pisses me off.

 

[Queen of Tarts]

I feel sorry for the family. Gawker basically didn't give too fucks about airing this publicly. Can you imagine what the wife is going through right now? It's awful that the guy was outed in such a way, but why not threaten to go to the wife instead? The porn star is scum, any way. There was no need to make it worse and go to a fucking media outlet.

Gawker sucks.

 

[Superior Watermelon]

Someone is claiming it's a hoax they pulled at Gawker to get back for GamerGate. Whether it's true or not somebody's life got ruined.

 

[AnOminous]

Someone is claiming it's a hoax they pulled at Gawker to get back for GamerGate. Whether it's true or not somebody's life got ruined.

That someone is weev. You're seriously taking anything weev says seriously?

 

[Superior Watermelon]

That someone is weev. You're seriously taking anything weev says seriously?

I'm not, hence why I used the word "claiming". The point is no matter what the story is Gawker ruined somebody's life.

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

I really hope Gawker dies in a pit of flames soon.

They're just begging for themselves to be killed at this point.

 

[MiloWuCollusion]

It doesn't matter if the story is a hoax or not, they publish it. If is true, they participated with an extorsionist and, if is fake, they libel someone that is not even a fucking public figure . The fact their "editors" are bitching about the removal of that piece should tell anyone how rotten that place is...

 

[AnOminous]

It doesn't matter if the story is a hoax or not, they publish it. If is true, they participated with an extorsionist and, if is fake, they libel someone that is not even a fucking public figure . The fact their "editors" are bitching about the removal of that piece should tell anyone how rotten that place is...

What's especially scummy about this, even for Gawker, is that apparently it's the result of David Geithner refusing to commit an act of corruption demanded by an extortionist. If he had actually gone ahead and tried to rig something via his brother, Gawker would not have been in a position to do this.

So they basically punished someone by outing them for NOT being a corrupt fuckwad.

There is absolutely nothing newsworthy about this other than that some guy is gay. So fucking what.

 

[Splendid]

Not like Gawker ever was a bastion of journalistic integrity but too me this went too far. I guess Hulk Hogan's lawsuit wasn't enough they wanted more?

Gawker has openly admitted to being a tabloid before, and I don't think anyone (myself included) would be that angry at them if they would just fucking act like one and own up to it instead of pretending to be a real news organization. We're at the point where even Buzzfeed is more reliable than them.

There is absolutely nothing newsworthy about this other than that some guy is gay.

Some guy being gay isn't news. It's inherently not news. I'm not even an SJW and I don't think we should be going "OMG, X is gay!" If SJW's weren't so hypocritical, they'd be getting pissed at Gawker for acting like this deserves to be pusblished.

 

[AnOminous]

Some guy being gay isn't news. It's inherently not news. I'm not even an SJW and I don't think we should be going "OMG, X is gay!" If SJW's weren't so hypocritical, they'd be getting pissed at Gawker for acting like this deserves to be pusblished.

Well, when some celebrity is gay, they have at least a market demand excuse for it. People are interested in it, whether that's sleazy or not. So something like the National Enquirer is sleazy, but not beyond the pale. This is just "some random dude you never heard of is gay" and the only apparent motivation is he's the CFO of one of their competitors.

The only ethical thing to do with this story, even by tabloid standards, was to dump it on the floor and forget it.

 

[DuskEngine]

Honestly, I hope Gawker burns and takes all of its sister sites with it. The only one I'd miss is io9 anyway.

 

[Morbid Boredom]

Two Editors resigned in protest.

 

[AnOminous]

Two Editors resigned in protest.

Those two go on some kind of special list of complete assholes of the universe. They're actually resigning in protest that Gawker isn't scummy and sociopathic enough for them. wow

 

[melty]

I really don't care about Gawker's ethics but it really grinds my gears seeing people say that he did nothing wrong, or that being gay isn't newsworthy and completely missing the point. He still cheated on his wife and I feel like nobody takes that seriously anymore. I know some people are arguing they might have an arrangement but come on.

 

[AnOminous]

I really don't care about Gawker's ethics but it really grinds my gears seeing people say that he did nothing wrong, or that being gay isn't newsworthy and completely missing the point. He still cheated on his wife and I feel like nobody takes that seriously anymore. I know some people are arguing they might have an arrangement but come on.

Would it be a news story if your neighbor cheated on his wife and there was utterly nothing more remarkable about him?

Is some random unethical thing you did in your private life something there should be a news story about? I think pretty much everyone has something in their lives they wouldn't want to read about for no reason at all in the news, and invasion of privacy without some justifying public interest is, in fact, actually against the law.

 

[melty]

Would it be a news story if your neighbor cheated on his wife and there was utterly nothing more remarkable about him?

Is some random unethical thing you did in your private life something there should be a news story about? I think pretty much everyone has something in their lives they wouldn't want to read about for no reason at all in the news, and invasion of privacy without some justifying public interest is, in fact, actually against the law.

I'm not really involved in the ethics of Gawker publishing the piece or cutting it down. I'm just personally bothered by people flippantly saying he did nothing wrong when he obviously did. They probably shouldn't have published it, I just don't have much of an opinion on that aspect.

 

[Ohoolihan]

I'm not really involved in the ethics of Gawker publishing the piece or cutting it down. I'm just personally bothered by people flippantly saying he did nothing wrong when he obviously did. They probably shouldn't have published it, I just don't have much of an opinion on that aspect.

Even if we assume everything they published was true (which we shouldn't since it appears to be completely libelous), this guy texted someone in order to cheat but didn't end up following through with it, declined to use his political connections to pull strings, and subsequently became the target of a blackmailing scheme. So his list of wrongdoings now whittles down to "considered cheating and almost did it", which is pretty much nothing.

 

[Joan Nyan]

I really don't care about Gawker's ethics but it really grinds my gears seeing people say that he did nothing wrong, or that being gay isn't newsworthy and completely missing the point. He still cheated on his wife and I feel like nobody takes that seriously anymore. I know some people are arguing they might have an arrangement but come on.

Sure he shouldn't be cheating on his wife but that's not news. If the people who found this out wanted to personally tell his wife or something that would be one thing but it's not news. The fact that it's someone who works for a competitor makes it even worse since they clearly only published it to hurt another publisher's reputation.

 

[melty]

Even if we assume everything they published was true (which we shouldn't since it appears to be completely libelous), this guy texted someone in order to cheat but didn't end up following through with it, declined to use his political connections to pull strings, and subsequently became the target of a blackmailing scheme. So his list of wrongdoings now whittles down to "considered cheating and almost did it", which is pretty much nothing.

If I texted a hooker, sent him half of a payment and then didn't go through with it because the hooker blackmailed me, and my boyfriend (who is basically my husband anyway) found out I would expect to be dumped immediately as I'd do if he was the one paying hookers for some work trip fun.
It's reprehensible and it's handwaving like this that is exactly I'm talking about. It's not newsworthy, but it's not "pretty much nothing." Dude has a wife and kids. That's fucked up. Seeing so many people saying "he did nothing wrong!!" or "being gay isn't a crime" is really disturbing. He did something wrong, the question should remain whether it's newsworthy and how terribly Gawker handled it.
Once again, I'm not trying to argue it should have been published or Gawker is somehow in the right here. I simply find some people's responses to what he did disconcerting.