Fax Gawker Byline with airSlate SignNow

Add countersign gawker

many are questioning gawkers journalistic ethics after they decided to publish a story outing an executive and of course we're not gonna give the details to that story because it's unnecessary now the executive that they outed uh did not have any type of political action in the past against gay individuals he is not a moralist he is not known for doing anything to push any conservative policies but nonetheless Gawker thought it would be important to publish the very intimate details of this individual even though it has absolutely no relevance in anyone else's life now later on they decided to take the post down but only after uh the managing partners of Gawker voted to do so now uh the editorial staff at Gawker is actually livid about this which we'll get to in just a second but it does raise questions about when it is and is not acceptable to out someone's personal private sexual life yeah it's it's not acceptable right and if they're a hypocrite and it's a matter of politics and they're voting against gay rights totally different situation well they're the rights of so many Americans are on the line here and their hypocrisy can't be tolerated because it's not just a matter of personal opinion that affects public policy it affects the rights of American citizens can't have it you want to out them I get it and I'm on your side you're out a private citizen because they have a famous name or they're connected to someone who's famous well like you're just getting your rocks off right that that's there's no political or policy ramifications there there's no real reason to do it you just want to be cute like how we got its you got on what would you yeah what did you you got I know and conquer it's it says in there by line that they're about gossip write something about today's gossip is tomorrow's news that's what they're known for yeah it feels ugly it's beyond ugly so when that article was published last week someone had sent it to me and they suggested that we do it because it was a viral story at the time and I remember reading the details and as I'm reading this article by the way as I'm reading it I feel dirty because I should know the private details of this person but i'm waiting for the roar the relevance right the part where it's like okay this person is a moralist this person's conservative this person's trying to trample on the rights of Americans but no that never came this is just a big name person who shouldn't have his personal information put out there and by the way the reason why the story was published was because there was an another character in the story who was bribing him right give me a or else I will release all these details about your sex life Gawker took it and Gawker published it okay they didn't even publish the guy's name right the wrong try next order exactly come on and and so like you think that's a scoop that's it's not a scoop and that's you just did that extortionist bidding that's all you did it's like what the government does oftentimes here I'll give you a leak leak that says exactly what I want you to say and then you printed in your paper well that was propaganda and you did their service for them you didn't really do any kind of journalism and this isn't journalism so you just playing a role in that guy's blackmail so so far two members of the editorial staff at Gawker have decided to resign one person is Tommy Craggs and another person is max Reed now they disagreed with the managing partners decision to take the post down in fact they really statements about it and they're very strongly worded um the editorial staff said the following today's unprecedented breach of the firewall in which business executives deleted an editorial post over the objections of the entire executive air editorial staff demonstrated exactly why we seek greater protection our opinions on the post are not unanimous but we are united in objecting to editorial decisions being made by majority of non editorial managers disagreements about editorial judgment are matters to be resolved by editorial employees we condemn to take down in the strongest possible terms well if you condemn that takedown in the strongest possible terms then I condemn the way you guys operate at Gawker because that shows that you have absolutely no concern about journalistic ethics whatsoever you should have a concern especially when it has to do with literally destroying someone's life by outing their personal details like that well look i think this question is a little bit tougher than it appears this last part of it right it tom bo gionee t-bog rose sorry wrote a great article arguing it's not that hard it's not that complicated he said for example Scalia makes the case up hey on a process issue even if the person is actually innocent and they're on death row if we did you know everything right legally we should kill them anyway no no don't kill him so in this case don't out the guy but we can you don't have a real great moral claim here but the editorial side saying hey wait business side shouldn't get to make the decisions okay well it's that's a point worth considering I absolutely get that but in this case the editorial staff was stupid okay and they didn't understand very simple in my opinion journalistic ethics and unfortunately uh the managing partners had to come in and do the right thing look the managing partners were concerned about money okay they're worried about corporate interest they're worried about advertisers I get that okay so whether or not their hearts were in the right place is a question that's kind of up in the air but ultimately they made the right decision and it was the decision that the editorial board should have been able to make themselves but they're too stupid to do it so will the editorial board of course are you well you think we're stupid but we don't we think it was the right call and so that's like your opinion man no wonder the Enquirer or whatever go work for one of those tabloid magazines okay don't prance around pretending like you're journalists because that's not journalism journalism is supposed to be done to hold Authority accountable it's supposed to have some sort of public social good that article had absolutely no relevance to anyone's life whatsoever it was just gossip and then they would argue well this is a gossip website and the word editorial team for the Gaza website so now you don't agree with our editorial decisions and you're gonna make a business decision so but then okay finally where do I come out on it I think it is a little tougher called and then bog or Anna thinks it is but it's a weird thing to say I am going to have my journalistic ethics in place here and and not let the business side make these decisions because I run a principled gossip website well okay that's kind of a funny statement so and you know and when I do dirty gossip on someone that I shouldn't have done well I got the right to stick by it hey you could make that case but it's a not one that's overly persuasive I think this might have been a moment to say hey you know what they're good people on both sides who think we should have run it and we shouldn't have run it management made that decision we wish they were consulted with us but we get it instead but you do have to give them credit they were principal they resigned over it yep they resigned over so maybe they will go work for the Enquirer or some other website bye Felicia okay and where they'll have less interference from management if they can find such websites and and then okay great then it all sorted itself out they left and and management gets to continue in their own way the only person that didn't work out for is the guy that they out