Gawker

owen prev at valleywag

HAYES

playbook drudge wanna be?=
<div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">it's back?</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">1 22 an</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[media crit]</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div>Donald Trump went into the 2020 election with <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/328637/last-trump-job-approval-average-record-low.aspx" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">some of the worst approval ratings</a> on record for a sitting president. He made virtually no effort to appeal to those who didn’t vote for him. How was he able to remain standing, and how did he even potentially have a chance at a second term even if he lost the popular vote? One big reason is that he and his acolytes had convinced their base that the media can’t be trusted.As we know by now, whenever the media aired even mildly critical coverage of Trump or those who were supposedly helping him make America great again, the response on the right was some variation of “(noun) (verb) fake news!” Indeed, it’s <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-being-anti-media-is-now-part-of-the-gop-identity/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">almost an article of faith</a> among the Republican base that the media can’t be trusted.If your news diet consists of the likes of Fox News, Newsmax, right-wing social media, and Christian conservative outlets, you probably think that when the mainstream media isn’t making things up, it’s crossing lines that should never be crossed in order. But there’s one problem—with few exceptions, it’s right-wing media that engages in that very behavior. And while some of those elements are finally answering for the worst of their sins, others are long overdue for a dose of accountability.Contrary to what Trump and his diehards would have us think, whenever mainstream media outlets make a mistake, those mistakes are usually corrected fairly quickly once caught. A case in point was a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/opinion/steve-scalise-congress-shot-alexandria-virginia.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">2017 editorial in The New York Times</a> that held 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin partly responsible for a grisly 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona. The Old Grey Lady’s editorial board claimed that just days before the shooting, Palin’s political action committee circulated a map that placed stylized crosshairs on the districts of 19 Democratic House members. The implication was clear—that map was a big reason why one of those lawmakers, then-Rep. Gabby Giffords of Arizona, nearly died that day.That claim was <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/sarah-palins-new-york-times-lawsuit-could-spell-disaster-for-the-free-press" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">slammed on all sides of the aisle</a>, prompting the Times to partly retract the editorial within five hours of it going online. All of the inaccurate information was retracted within two days. Despite this, Palin sued the Times for defamation. As near as can be determined, Palin is suing because she didn’t just want the Times to retract, but to grovel. The suit was due to go to trial in late January, but was pushed back to early February after the rabidly anti-vaccine Palin <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/business/sarah-palin-covid.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">caught COVID-19</a>.Palin faces tough sledding under current precedent for libel and defamation suits. As a public figure, she would have to prove that when the editorial board greenlighted the initial version of the editorial, it did so acting with actual malice. That is, Palin would have to convince a jury that the editorial board either knew the story was false or published it with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false. Remember, the statements at issue were retracted in almost no time at all in modern media terms. Her only<a href="https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2022/sarah-palin-v-the-new-york-times-could-be-a-groundbreaking-journalism-case/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> chance of winning</a> is to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court in hopes of making it easier for public figures to win libel suits.As it currently stands, Palin’s suit betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how media outlets with actual standards work. Indeed, the Times’ quick retraction stands in marked contrast to the behavior of celebrity gossip blog Gawker. In March 2016, Gawker was effectively forced out of business when it was ordered to<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/business/media/hulk-hogan-damages-25-million-gawker-case.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> cough up $140 million</a> in damages to pro wrestler Hulk Hogan for posting a clip of a sex tape of Hogan. While its sister sites (such as sports culture blog Deadspin, tech blog Gizmodo, and feminist blog Jezebel) were sold to Univision at a bankruptcy auction, Gawker itself was<a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/08/19/490657591/on-the-demise-of-gawker-com-unsparing-satiric-and-brutal" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> shut down</a> that August. Ultimately, Gawker <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/business/media/gawker-hulk-hogan-settlement.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">settled with Hogan</a> for $31 million that November.A number of observers slammed the verdict for its<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/hulk-hogans-115-million-ko-in-courtroom-could-have-chilling-effect-on-media/2016/03/21/0fa94aa4-ef81-11e5-89c3-a647fcce95e0_story.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> potential chilling effect</a> on freedom of the press, especially after billionaire venture capitalist Peter Thiel<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-tech-billionaire-reveals-secret-war-with-gawker.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> revealed</a> that he had bankrolled the suit. Thiel openly admitted that he wanted to punish Gawker after its now-defunct tech gossip sister, Valleywag, outed him as gay in 2007. Indeed, in a post-mortem about Gawker on its last day of business, NPR media reporter David Folkenflik<a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/08/19/490657591/on-the-demise-of-gawker-com-unsparing-satiric-and-brutal" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> observed</a> that Thiel’s involvement in Hogan’s suit against Gawker portended “ugly implications for press freedom in light of adversaries with nearly infinite resources.”At its peak in 2015, Gawker had<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150630171204/http:/www.similarweb.com/website/gawker.com" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> over 23 million visits per month</a>, making it one of the most visited sites in the world. With that level of popularity, it’s only fair to wonder—why was no one willing to ride to Gawker’s rescue? Granted, potential buyers might have been<a href="https://www.vox.com/2016/5/26/11786662/gawker-sale-bankrupt-peter-thiel-hulk-hogan" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> skittish</a> about having to deal with the massive legal headache of a lawsuit bankrolled by a billionaire. But surely someone with the wherewithal to withstand Thiel’s resources would have rescued Gawker solely on the principle of defending freedom of the press, right?By then, however, Gawker had lost a lot of goodwill as a result of two instances where its disregard for standards dating back to the days of typewriters and leaflets was exposed for all to see. In 2015, Gawker <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/gawker-got-in-bed-with-the-wrong-escortand-civil-war-ensues" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">ran an article</a> that claimed Conde Nast Chief Financial Officer David Geithner, the brother of President Obama’s Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, was being extorted by a gay porn star and male escort. As the story goes, when Geithner reneged on a deal to meet up with the porn star on a trip to Chicago, the escort went to Gawker and offered to tell all. He supplied copies of text exchanges between himself and Geithner and a selfie that Geithner supposedly sent him.When the story went live, the criticism came in<a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gawker-conde-nast-david-geithner_n_55a90c56e4b0c5f0322d0b2c" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> hard</a>,<a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/07/gawker-retraction-nick-denton-s-site-yanks-outing-and-extortion-male-escort-article-after-uproar.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> fast</a>, and from<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/18/business/media/gawker-retracts-an-article-after-criticism-and-gets-more-brickbats-from-its-staff.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> all directions</a>. Most of the detractors argued that it served no public interest to even imply that Geithner was gay. For example, the University of Minnesota’s Jane Kirtley, a media law expert, told The Daily Beast that absent evidence that Geithner gave “preferential treatment to people in the hiring process” or was guilty of sexual harassment, she was “really hard-pressed” to see a legitimate reason for running the story.But this story had a more fundamental problem than lack of public interest. It was sourced almost entirely from a guy who was extorting Geithner. Specifically, the bulk of the story came from texts provided to Gawker staff writer Jordan Sargent. Despite this, according to Mother Jones, Gawker took only<a href="https://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/07/gawker-conde-nast-fallout-timeline-denton/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> one working day</a> to research, vet, and fact-check the story before it went live.A number of media experts found the rapid turnaround time for this story extremely problematic. Ken Paulson, former editor-in-chief of USA Today and current president of the First Amendment Center, told Mother Jones that stories that could even potentially wreck someone’s reputation “are typically vetted over a longer period.” Over that time, Paulson added, details could come up that “could give you pause about publishing.” First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams was interviewed in the same article, saying that when there is evidence of blackmail or extortion, it ought to be “a blinking yellow light, or even a blinking red light” to thoroughly vet it before you even consider publishing it.Gawker’s defense, at the time, seemed to be that the story was true and nothing else mattered. In response to withering criticism—including from Gawker’s own readers—Natasha Vargas-Cooper of Jezebel harrumphed in a since-deleted tweet that in her mind, “if it’s true, you publish.”The fact that Gawker seemed to justify this story simply because it was true appeared especially tone-deaf a mere four years after the News of the World was<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jul/07/news-of-the-world-to-close" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> forced out of existence</a> due to rampant phone-hacking. Indeed, Gawker’s ethos appeared little different from that of WikiLeaks. By then, we’d known since at least 2010 that Julian Assange’s idea of transparency included<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> releasing unredacted Social Security numbers</a>—and dismissing any potential harm as “collateral damage.”A mere 18 hours after the story went live, Gawker Media’s six-member managing partnership<a href="https://www.gawker.com/gawker-is-removing-story-about-conde-nast-cfo-1718582003" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> voted to remove it</a> over the<a href="http://politburo.gawker.com/a-statement-from-the-gawker-media-editorial-staff-1718649722" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> furious objections</a> of Gawker’s editorial staff. But when Gawker founder and CEO Nick Denton delivered<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150717225837/http:/nick.kinja.com/taking-a-post-down-1718581684" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> the official explanation</a> for removing the post, he proved that he still didn’t get it.Denton said that the story about Geithner was “true and well reported,” which would have been enough to justify running it “in the early days of the Internet.” However, he said, “Gawker is no longer the insolent blog that began in 2003,” and this meant that potential stories “have to be true and interesting” in order to pass editorial muster. Denton went further in a memo to Gawker’s editorial team, saying that he was “ashamed” to have his name attached to the story, even if “we were within our legal right to publish.”There are times when what was considered good reporting years ago is patently unacceptable now. For instance, the relentless coverage of Britney Spears in the early 2000s<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/arts/music/britney-spears-documentary-media.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> would never be tolerated today</a> given greater awareness about mental health and sexism. But this didn’t even come close to being one of those times. By suggesting that an article that essentially amounted to aiding and abetting extortion would be even remotely acceptable in 2003, Denton made his statement announcing the article’s deletion amount to a non-apology apology. It also casts a pall on the good that Gawker actually did—like turning the hot lights on Toronto Mayor <a href="https://www.gawker.com/for-sale-a-video-of-toronto-mayor-rob-ford-smoking-cra-507736569" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Rob Ford</a>’s substance abuse, or revealing that <a href="https://www.gawker.com/tag/bill-oreilly" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Bill O’Reilly</a> used his influence to start an investigation of his ex-wife’s boyfriend.Soon after the furor over the Geithner article died down, it became even clearer just how serious Gawker’s cultural problem was. In July 2015, Vanity Fair writer Richard Lawson<a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/james-franco-gawker_b_7816032" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> tweeted a mea culpa</a> about his days at Gawker. He admitted that he’d written, on orders from his boss, “baseless posts accusing an actor of raping an ex-boyfriend.” That actor was<a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2011/01/james-franco-gay.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> James Franco</a>.From 2008 to around 2014, Gawker churned out a series of articles that attempted to out Franco. The first of these articles, penned by Lawson, was a follow-up to a<a href="http://pagesix.com/2008/08/18/just-asking-88/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> blind item</a> in the New York Post in which an unidentified actor reportedly broke into his former boyfriend’s apartment and violently raped him. In<a href="http://gawker.com/5040051/so-really-which-actor-raped-his-gay-lover" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> his article</a>, Lawson mused that the three likely suspects were Will Smith, Christian Bale—and Franco.Soon afterward, Lawson<a href="http://gawker.com/5040524/the-people-have-spoken-and-they-think-james-franco-is-a-rapist" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> wrote another article</a> suggesting that based on Gawker commenters’ sentiment, “the people” felt Franco was a gay rapist. He then followed that up with<a href="https://www.gawker.com/5056330/gay-rapist-actor-surprisingly-cool-about-his-sexuality" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> a third article</a> suggesting that the “gay rapist” Franco had actually been mentioned by the person who tipped off the Post about the supposed violent attack. If there is any difference between that article and Trump’s penchant for spewing baseless garbage that’s supposedly based on what “<a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/11/14238274/trumps-speaking-style-press-conference-linguists-explain" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">many people are saying</a>,” I don’t see it.Later, other Gawker writers<a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/gawkers-homophobic-years-long-crusade-to-out-james-franco" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> penned articles</a> suggesting that Franco was gay, based on the thinnest reeds of evidence. According to The Daily Beast, this was part of Gawker’s “creepy obsession with outing closeted men.” Granted, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/12/23/james-franco-misconduct-allegations-interview/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Franco is no angel</a>. In 2021, he not only settled a lawsuit alleging that he harassed several students at the acting school he ran from 2014 to 2017, but admitted sleeping with some of his students.Seen in this light, it’s no wonder that it took <a href="https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/gawker-relaunch-bustle-digital-group-1235029633/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">more than six years</a> and at least one false start for Gawker to be revived. It returned in the summer of 2021 as a sister publication to women’s magazine Bustle, who bought Gawker’s remains in 2019. One would have thought that given Gawker’s popularity, it would have been revived sooner. However, NPR’s Folkenflik noted that when Univision bought Gawker’s sister sites, it concluded that Gawker itself was “too toxic to touch.”Given how long it took for Gawker to be revived, any potential white knights must have reached the same conclusion. Who would want to take on an organization that not only believed there was a time where extortion was at all acceptable, but had no qualms about running libel?Indeed, even as I write this, the articles libeling Franco are still available on Gawker’s website. That contrasts sharply with how the Times handled the initial version of its editorial attack on Palin. Contrary to what she and her fellow deplorables would have us believe, mainstream media outlets have standards—and those that lack standards get culled.The same, however, can’t be said for some mainstays of right-wing media. For instance, when former Alabama chief justice Roy Moore made a bid for the U.S. Senate seat that came open when Jeff Sessions was tapped as Trump’s attorney general, Breitbart led a relentless smear campaign against the women who claimed Moore sexually assaulted them or pursued improper relationships with them. And it did so even though its editor-in-chief, Alex Marlow,<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/20/media/breitbart-alex-marlow-roy-moore/index.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> believed at least one of the accusers was credible</a>.Marlow made this shocking assertion in an interview with CNN’s Oliver Darcy in December 2017, a month after Moore’s narrow loss to Democrat Doug Jones. He revealed that he believed that Moore’s initial accuser, Leigh Corfman, had “a lot of credibility.” Corfman, you may recall, claimed Moore sexually assaulted her when she was 14.By admitting that he believed Moore’s accusers were credible even as Breitbart was smearing them, Marlow effectively put big, fat asterisks by every story Breitbart ran about the election. Victim shaming is bad enough, but doing so when you have reason to believe a victim is telling the truth is absolutely heinous. It’s even more so considering that Marlow admitted Breitbart <a href="https://www.salon.com/2017/12/15/breitbart-editor-we-defended-roy-moore-to-protect-donald-trump/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">went all-in for Moore to protect Trump</a>.Project Veritas also joined in on this disgraceful campaign. Its ringleader, James O’Keefe, even went as far as having one of his minions, Jaime Phillips, try to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">plant a bogus story</a> in The Washington Post claiming that Moore had impregnated her. But that story came apart when the Post did some actual journalism and discovered Phillips’ story had more red flags than a lifetime of Alabama football games. Most damningly, Phillips had created a GoFundMe page boasting about her goal to join “the conservative media movement” in exposing “the liberal MSM.”To pile obscenity on top of insult, O’Keefe revealed in December 2017 that <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/online/exclusive-james-okeefe-believes-roy-moores-accusers-despite-attempt-to-debunk-their-stories/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">he believed Moore’s accusers were credible</a>. And yet, he felt compelled to smear them because—wait for it—he felt their credibility was “not my subject matter,” and his real goal was exposing “bias in the media.” So the man whose stock in trade is targeting journalists for supposed bias admitted that doing so was so important that he felt compelled to shame victims that he believed were credible. Let that sink in.To give you an idea how outrageous Breitbart and Project Veritas’ behavior was here, imagine if every news outlet that passed on the prospect of exposing Harvey Weinstein’s depravities had reason to believe Weinstein’s accusers were credible—and yet ran stories effectively calling them liars. It makes Palin’s squawking about the Times’ failure to basically grovel before her look hypocritical as all hell.Fortunately, at least two other members of the deplorable fever swamp are facing long-overdue accountability. Take InfoWars, for instance. Even after Alex Jones was <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/06/technology/facebook-infowars-alex-jones/index.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">kicked off</a> mainstream <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-bans-alex-jones-and-infowars-today-2018-09-06-live-updates/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">social media</a> and <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-infowars/apple-inc-bans-alex-jones-app-for-objectionable-content-idUSKCN1LO04G" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">blackballed</a> from smartphone <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/google-bans-infowars-android-app-alex-jones-coronavirus/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">app stores</a>, it looked like he was going to continue his years-long promotion of conspiracy theories and hate speech—albeit with a much reduced audience.But what may have been the beginning of the end for Jones came in 2018, not long after Facebook and YouTube gave him the boot. <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/23/us/alex-jones-sandy-hook-suit/index.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Several families</a> of Sandy Hook victims, along with an FBI agent who responded to the shooting, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/05/24/sandy-hook-families-sue-infowars-alex-jones-over-conspiracy-theory/641159002/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">sued Jones</a> for defamation. Specifically, they wanted Jones held to account for his numerous claims that the Sandy Hook victims and survivors were “<a href="https://www.wired.com/story/alex-jones-lawsuit-will-help-redefine-free-speech/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">crisis actors</a>.” These claims have resulted in the survivors being relentlessly harassed and trolled. The family of Noah Pozner, for instance, has had to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/31/us/politics/alex-jones-defamation-suit-sandy-hook.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">move numerous times</a> due to the harassment, and now live under high security in an undisclosed location. They have never been able to visit their son’s grave.A series of legal reversals for Jones and InfoWars culminated in the fall of 2021. That September, a Texas judge issued <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alex-jones-lost-two-sandy-hook-cases_n_61561020e4b008640eb1d56a" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">three default judgments</a> against Jones and InfoWars in two defamation suits filed by Sandy Hook families. The judge had lost patience with Jones’ refusal to turn over documents, and found it egregious enough to conclude that Jones had already lost. In November, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/15/us/politics/alex-jones-sandy-hook.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">a Connecticut judge</a> issued a default judgment in a suit filed against Jones in another lawsuit. While damages will be determined at trial later this year, they are likely to add up to hundreds of millions of dollars—in all likelihood, enough to put InfoWars out of business.Another fixture of the deplorable fever swamp, Gateway Pundit, may also face extinction after being<a href="https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/12/3/2067466/-GA-election-workers-sue-Gateway-Pundit-for-falsely-accusing-them-of-stealing-GA-for-Biden" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;"> sued</a> for orchestrating a vicious trolling campaign that falsely accused Georgia election workers of stealing their state for Joe Biden. The two workers, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, claim that Gateway Pundit started a flood of disinformation that reached all the way to Trump, who <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/georgia-election-workers-suing-conspiracy-website-campaign-lies-rcna7319" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">attacked Freeman by name</a> in his now-infamous attempt to shake down Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.<a href="https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/12/georgia-election-workers-sue-right-wing-bloggers-over-2020-conspiracy-theories/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Dozens of bogus stories</a> about Freeman and Moss resulted in death threats, doxing, and kidnapping attempts, among other things. Rather than apologize, Gateway Pundit actually tried to raise money off the lawsuit, <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/12/georgia-election-workers-sue-right-wing-bloggers-over-2020-conspiracy-theories/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">netting over $81,000</a>. If there is any justice, though, that fundraising effort will be a futile exercise. Gateway Pundit and its impresarios, the Hoft brothers, ought to get a very hard lesson on why private citizens only need to prove negligence in order to win libel suits.The Times moves in almost no time at all by current media standards to retract claims about Palin—and yet, Breitbart, Project Veritas, and Gateway Pundit refuse to even attempt to apologize for far worse. What’s wrong with this picture?The answer to that question is simpler than you may think. For all the caterwauling we hear from the right about the media not having any standards, we have seen instance after instance where the media has shown it actually does. Moreover, whenever elements of the mainstream press show they don’t have standards, they are weeded out. The demise of Gawker is a stark example of what happens when you catapult your way into the mainstream, only to show you have little regard for basic standards of decency.If we are to remove the tinder from our politics, we must subject the media to the same level of accountability that Gawker faced, and what InfoWars is more than likely to face. As Gawker learned in 2016, that standard ought to apply regardless of political shade. But if Palin and other right-wingers are willing to take off their blinders, they would see that their own side of the media divide is long overdue for a cleaning.Poll 426 votes <a href="https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/1/29/2077201/-The-media-is-due-for-a-heavy-dose-of-accountability#poll" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Show Results</a></div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div>http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/business/media/gawker-bankruptcy-sale.html?r=0
<p class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="270" data-total-count="270" times="times" new="new" roman="roman" serif="serif" max-width="max-width" none="none" width="width" px="px" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em 60px; line-height: 1.625rem;"><a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/gawker_media/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about Gawker Media." class="meta-org" style="color: rgb(50, 104, 145);">Gawker Media</a>, the irreverent company that pioneered the wry tone and take-no-prisoners approach that came to embody a certain style of web journalism, put itself up for sale on Friday in an acknowledgment that its future as an independent news organization was in doubt.<p class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="364" data-total-count="634" times="times" new="new" roman="roman" serif="serif" max-width="max-width" none="none" width="width" px="px" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em 60px; line-height: 1.625rem;">Gawker said it had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and would conduct a sale through an auction. The company is under significant financial pressure from a $140 million legal judgment in an invasion-of-privacy lawsuit by the former wrestler Hulk Hogan and facing a determined foe in the Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel, who is funding legal cases against it.<p class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="292" data-total-count="926" times="times" new="new" roman="roman" serif="serif" max-width="max-width" none="none" width="width" px="px" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em 60px; line-height: 1.625rem;">Ziff Davis, a digital media company, has submitted an opening bid, which a person briefed on Gawker’s plans said was in the range of $90 million to $100 million. The person spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sale process. Gawker expects a sale to close by the end of the summer.<p class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="90" data-total-count="1016" times="times" new="new" roman="roman" serif="serif" max-width="max-width" none="none" width="width" px="px" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em 60px; line-height: 1.625rem;">But even as Gawker took stock of its next steps, it remained, in typical fashion, defiant.Hulk Hogan v. Gawker: A Guide to the Trial for the PerplexedMARCH 18, 2016
For Gawker, Legal Issues Beyond HoganMAY 31, 2016
Nick Denton, Gawker Founder, Assails Peter Thiel as ‘Vindictive’ FoeMAY 27, 2016
Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War With Gawker MAY 26, 2016Gawker’s sites published posts assuring readers they were not going anywhere.But even as Gawker took stock of its next steps, it remained, in typical fashion, defiant.“Even with his billions, Thiel will not silence our writers,” Nick Denton, Gawker’s founder and chief executive, said on Twitter. “Our sites will thrive — under new ownership — and we’ll win in court.” (Mr. Denton, through a spokesman, declined further comment.)Since its founding in 2002, Gawker has espoused a conversational tone that came to be mimicked across the internet and on social platforms like Twitter. Gawker and its affiliated sites — including the sports-focused Deadspin and Jezebel, which is aimed at women — have relentlessly and gleefully chronicled the lives of the powerful, and often delivered attention-grabbing, exclusive stories, some of them too over-the-edge for other publications. The company was also an incubator of talent: Employees went on to found websites like The Awl and work at publications like The New Yorker and Time.Gawker also had many detractors, who said it often went too far and published items with little news value that aimed to embarrass individuals. But over the last year Gawker.com has been going through something of a cultural transformation. Mr. Denton has vowed to make the site nicer and Gawker has shifted to politics and away from coverage of the New York media world and celebrity gossip.The decision to file for bankruptcy and put itself up for sale is the latest development for a company that has faced a seemingly unending barrage of bad news in the last year. There was the maelstrom last summer after Gawker published, and then removed, an article about a married male media executive who sought to hire a gay escort. That decision led to the resignations of two top editors. More recently, there was the lawsuit by Mr.Hogan, whose real name is Terry G. Bollea, which has roiled the company and raised questions about its path forward.Hulk Hogan Awarded $115 Million in Privacy Suit Against Gawker MARCH 18, 2016
“It really was an incredibly bad year,” said Hamilton Nolan, a writer who has worked at Gawker for eight years. “I think they’ll study this in journalism schools one day as being the single worst year in media company history.”
In Gawker’s new offices in Manhattan on Friday, the mood was somber. Around noon, Mr. Denton and Heather Dietrick, the company’s president and general counsel, held a meeting to inform employees of the company’s plans and provide reassurance that Gawker would operate as usual during the sale process.
“They emphasized that the future is uncertain, but for now we’re going to keep doing what we do, and that was useful for people to hear,” said Alex Pareene, the editor in chief of Gawker.
Employees said that few people had known before the meeting of the company’s decision to file for bankruptcy. A keg of beer was brought in and pizzas were ordered.
“It was not a raucous or even particularly depressing affair,” Mr. Pareene said. “We’ve had more depressing meetings and we’ve had more argumentative meetings.”...
Filing for Chapter 11 stays claims from creditors, including court judgments — meaning Gawker will not need to begin paying the $140 million that was awarded in March to Mr. Bollea.
It also allows companies more time and more control as they reorganize themselves. In its bankruptcy filing, Gawker listed $50 million to $100 million in assets and $100 million to $500 million in liabilities. The company still plans to appeal the case.
Also on Friday, a judge in Pinellas County Circuit Court in Florida granted Gawker’s request for a stay of the judgment against it in the lawsuit, pending an appeal. That decision essentially became redundant once Gawker filed for bankruptcy.
Weeks earlier, Mr. Thiel acknowledged in an interview with The New York Times that he was financially supporting Mr. Bollea’s lawsuit, as well as other lawsuits against the organization. Mr. Thiel, a founder of PayPal and one of the earliest investors in Facebook, was outed as being gay by one of Gawker’s blogs, the now-defunct Valleywag, nearly a decade ago. He said that Gawker published articles that “ruined people’s lives for no reason” and prompted his decision to finance cases against the company.“It’s less about revenge and more about specific deterrence,” Mr. Thiel said of his supporting Gawker’s legal opponents. “I saw Gawker pioneer a unique and incredibly damaging way of getting attention by bullyingpeople even when there was no connection with the public interest.”A spokesman for Mr. Thiel did not return a request for comment on Friday. Gawker is also exploring at least one lawsuit against Mr. Thiel, according to the person briefed on Gawker’s plans.The offer by Ziff Davis, whose online properties include IGN, Geek.com and AskMen.com, is what is known as a “stalking-horse bid,” essentially setting a floor in a court-supervised auction. Money from a sale would be held aside to cover creditor claims, including any damages after the appeals process.In an internal memo obtained by The New York Times, Ziff Davis’s chief executive, Vivek Shah, said that under the terms of a potential agreement, the company would acquire Gawker Media’s properties but none of its liabilities. When discussing its plans for Gawker Media, he referred to the benefits of having all of the company’s sites, but conspicuously omitted any mention of Gawker.com.He said the auction would most likely take place at the end of July. Other bidders, which will probably include other media publishers, are expected, particularly with the threat of assuming legal claims removed with the bankruptcy filing.In January, Gawker sold a minority stake in the company to the investment company Columbus Nova Technology Partners, partly in preparation for the lawsuit by Mr. Bollea.Mr. Bollea sued Gawker Media in 2012 over Gawker.com’s publication of a black-and-white tape that showed Mr. Bollea having sex with a woman who was at the time the wife of a friend of his.In March, after a two-week trial, a Florida jury awarded $115 million in damages to Mr. Bollea. A jury later awarded $25 million more in punitive damages, bringing the total to $140 million.On Friday, some Gawker employees remained hopeful that a new owner might mean a fresh start, but there was also perhaps a tacit acknowledgment that Gawker as everyone knew it could soon be a thing of the past.“There’s not going to be the magical happy ending to the story,” Mr. Nolan said. “It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to be the worst ending to the story, but we’re not just going to go back to everything being how it was.”Michael J. de la Merced, Nick Wingfield, John Koblin, Nick Madigan and Andrew Ross Sorkin contributed reporting.
A version of this article appears in print on June 11, 2016, on page A1 of the New York edition=Belinda Luscombe is an editor-at-large of TIME'I’ve always had a surprising amount of respect for Rupert Murdoch'
time mag
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU Women Are Winning on 'Game of Thrones.' But It Feels a Little Forced
Recently, you had a $140 million judgment against Gawker Media, declared bankruptcy and put the media empire you founded up for sale. How’s your mood? Actually it’s good. It’s a bit of a relief. We have a deal in place with Ziff Davis. And separately we’ll pursue this litigation with the various plaintiffs who are being backed by [PayPal billionaire] Peter Thiel. And we expect frankly to win all of those cases.Can you explain the news value of the story that triggered the lawsuit, the Hulk Hogan sex tape? People, journalists, publishers will have different opinions about whether they would have published the eight seconds of grainy sex that was the illustration of the article. I don’t want to get into that debate all over again, just to note that a federal court has already determined that the piece was newsworthy.Hogan’s lawsuit against you was bankrolled by Thiel, whom Gawker outed in 2007. Is there a sense in which he’s won, now that you’re selling? To the extent that the bankruptcy of Gawker was one of his objectives, he’s achieved that. But he and his secret scheme have all been exposed. He has been embarrassed. And I doubt that any billionaire will be pursuing precisely this template again, having seen how strong the backlash is.Why do you think you lost? Was it an issue of tone? The Village Voice would have been equally offensive to a jury in Tampa [where the case was tried] 40 years ago, but it would not have been read by people on a Tampa jury. I think the cultural gap between a liberal metropolis like New York and the rest of America is more stark than it has been, and the conflict plays out in Internet media because Hulk Hogan’s [Florida] neighbors can read Gawker.Are there any stories you regret publishing? Absolutely. I don’t think we’ve ever made a misstep as big as say the New York Times‘ reporting of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. We haven’t gotten anybody into any wars. But we’ve absolutely made mistakes. If you’re not making some, you’re probably not doing your job.Is there a media mogul that you identify with? I’ve always had a surprising amount of respect for Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes. I respect publishers and media executives who’ll put out good, true, provocative stories and deal with the blowback.You’re a Brit, Murdoch is Australian. Do you ever feel like American journalists are too soft? I’m not the only one who has noted that the American newspapers—maybe because they have been local monopolies—are concerned more about respectability than their British peers. And concerned less about getting the story out. The British press certainly seems more rambunctious than the American newspapers.You recently got married. Has the fate of the Gawker empire become less central to your happiness? At my wedding, I think I actually said that I always thought I’d be successful but I never expected to be happy. And I am happily married to somebody who despises news in all its forms. I don’t know whether Gawker ever made me happy. I think it made me satisfied.
Do you feel like you have a rosebud? You mean something driving me? Maybe because I was gay, I grew up hating open secrets. Usually if someone’s gay it’s a pretty open secret. Their friends know, their family knows, but out of some misplaced sense of decency nobody talks about it. Generally my view is that, let’s just have it out. The truth will set you free. That’s what I believe.
Is Gawker.com as we know it, the site that drove a certain type of internet culture, a thing of the past? Gizmodo, Lifehacker, Kotaku, Jalopnik, Deadspin, Jezebel represents about 90% of the audience of the group. It’s only really because media people are so obsessed by Gawker.com that it’s had such an outsized share of attention. I think the Peter Thiel legal campaign, a secret campaign to set up critics demonstrates why independent media is so important. And it underlines why Gawker.com continues to have such an appeal. So I think as long as readers—whether they admit it publicly or not—as long as readers have a hunger for true, critical, funny stories about how the system works and about the concentration of money and power in modern society, as long as they have that appetite, then a site like Gawker.com is going to have a continued purpose.
You had litigation insurance, which you’ve used up. Did the Hulk Hogan lawsuit cost you personally? The company’s actually not majority owned by me anymore. My net worth is tied up almost entirely in stock in Gawker Media Group. We ran this as a small business. We pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps and we didn’t take any outside capital. And I and the other founders took very low salaries for nearly a decade. So my net worth is entirely pooled up in the value of Gawker Media Group. I have a stake of about 30%. And then I have an apartment with a mortgage, and that’s it. All of that stuff is publicly available. We have become not just proponents of radical transparency; we are living radical transparency with pretty much every single aspect of our financial lives and existence being now public. Which is fine by me.
What will the media landscape look like five years down the road? First of all, I think that properties like Gizmodo and Lifehacker and Deadspin and Jezebel have a much better chance of prospering in this new world than general news brands, news and media brands. Facebook will be the only general news brand, and maybe another social network or two. The more specialized, more focused publications will be the ones that prosper. I think that’s one thing that’s going to happen. And my personal interest is to find a way online to allow writers and readers and subjects and sources to debate and develop a story together. Not necessarily through conflict and trollery, but through civil disagreements online which further everybody’s understanding of an issue.
You’ve invested a lot in your online comment system, Kinja. Why? Comments and online discussion have been my obsession for several years. I don’t believe that journalists have any monopoly on understanding. And I think it’s healthier when not just their viewpoint but the viewpoints of their sources, the viewpoints of their subjects of an article, viewpoints of experts are all given equal weight in an article. I think the role of journalists as gatekeeper is more challenged now than it has been. And the internet, internet forums, internet comments, essentially social media environments, give the opportunity to more people to contribute to a story and contribute to our collective understanding.
But so much online commenting is just trollery… And often those trolls do crowd out civil discussion. Sometimes I feel like the only people left on Twitter are the trolls. The basic idea of the comments on Gizmodo and Lifehacker and Kotaku and the other Gawker properties is that they should reflect a conversation between the writer and readers. And I think most people agree that our comments, they’re not perfect, the occasional troll makes his or her way in. But generally discussions augment the stories and that’s why people spend longer on a Gawker story and are more likely to be engaged than they are on other news properties.
Why are online comments so misogynist? There’s racism, there’s misogyny, there’s many nasty thoughts. I think it boils down to the fact that people are mean. Sometimes they’re supportive and loving but sometimes they’re mean. And anonymity gives people a chance to share things about themselves that they would never share with anybody else, in a constructive fashion.Do you think other media outlets have been lax in covering Silicon Valley? Silicon Valley is a huge story and has been covered thoroughly. But Silicon Valley billionaires and Silicon Valley companies are notoriously controlling. I worked as a journalist for The Financial Times in Silicon Valley and I remember even back then that if you played along and if a story followed a company’s talking points you were fine. And if you asked critical questions, particularly if those critical questions got an airing in the article itself, then you’d lose access and you wouldn’t be invited back, you wouldn’t get early sight of gadgets or a piece of news. Silicon Valley, I think, has used the media and public fascination with its products as an instrument of power. And I think that’s natural. And I think it’s also natural that there be a reaction to that. And readers gravitate to more skeptical, cynical or critical coverage. Which is the reason why Valleywag, the Gawker section covering Silicon Valley, was such a phenomenon in Silicon Valley. People may have hated it, but they were all reading it.
Do you have any regret about not selling before these legal troubles depressed your sale price? The consolidation of digital media has only been going for the last 12 months. This lawsuit began in 2012. There was no window.
Wasn’t the Huffington Post sold before 2012? That was 2011. Look, we built the largest independent digital media company without outside capital, without buying traffic. And we pursued that path for as long as we could. The market is consolidating right now. If Gawker Media ends up as part of Ziff Davis I think it’s be an extremely powerful combination. It will be the dominant digital media player in technology and video games coverage, it will be very strong in lifestyle. This is a game of musical chairs. And there aren’t all that many chairs. There are plenty of people dancing around. And I think Gizmodo, Lifehacker, Kotaku, Jalopnik, Deadspin and Jezebel are going to be enduring properties, hopefully with stronger backing, stronger financial backing than they have been in the past. And less distracted by the litigation that enveloped Gawker.com.
Is there anybody you wouldn’t sell to? Anybody I wouldn’t sell to? I think there’s certain potential acquirers that our writers would not want to work for. But my main focus is to get the very best deal that we can to maximize value and to provide satisfying and secure jobs for the people who work here.
The people in my newsroom here want to know who was your favorite editor-in-chief at Gawker. This is just a matter of personal taste. I liked the original Elizabeth Spiers Gawker. I like in particular the way that the humor was delivered. I like the way that she writes intelligent pieces with witty asides, clearly marked. So you know what she’s saying, you know what’s a joke and what’s serious. And that meshes with my own personal style.
Is there a future for independent journalism? I think Facebook instant articles and the strength of Facebook as a marketplace for both content and advertising actually does offer some opportunities to independent publishers. The original goal of Gawker was actually to be a completely lightweight organization employing only writers and using technology, and taking technology and advertising sales kind of off the shelf. And I think it was early, and that’s why we developed our own publishing platform and our own advertising sales force. But I think the time for that idea will come again....Trump’s infamous golden locks.
Attorney Charles Harder on Wednesday sent a letter to the news site on behalf of a hair treatment clinic charging that Gawker reporter Ashley Feinberg made “false and defamatory” statements in her piece, headlined "Is Donald Trump’s Hair a $60,000 Weave? A Gawker Investigation. "
Harder was behind wrestler Hulk Hogan’s successful defamation lawsuit against Gawker for publishing Hogan's sex tape. The $140 million the company was ordered to pay Hogan, whose real name is Terry Bollea, eventually pushed the media company to declare bankruptcy and put itself up for sale. That suit and others were funded by Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel.
It is unclear what, if any, involvement Thiel had in this latest legal threat. The billionaire investor is a Trump supporter who will attend the Republican National Convention as a pledged delegate on Trump’s behalf.
According to Gawker’s J.K. Trotter, Harder’s letter requested that Gawker immediately remove the story on Trump's hair and issue a public apology. It also threatened legal action on behalf of the hair clinic, Ivari International, and its owner, Edward Ivari, who accused Gawker of invasion of privacy, intentionally inflicting emotional distress and interfering with the company’s business relations.
The letter, which Harder reportedly asked not be made public, said that Gawker’s actions exposed the company “to substantial monetary damages and punitive damages.”
Gawker’s investigation was kicked off by a tipster who claimed to know about Trump’s hair and said he relied on “microcylinder intervention,” an unusual treatment that cost tens of thousands of dollars for installation and maintenance. Feinberg found that the only company that uses this treatment is Ivari International, a clinic whose New York office was once located on the Trump Tower private floor reserved for Trump’s own office.
Trump has long claimed that his hair is his own.
Gawker president and general counsel Heather Dietrick wrote in the company's response to Harder that Ivari’s insistence the article be take down was “vastly overbroad,” given that he played a bit part in an article “about Donald Trump.”
Dietrick denied that any of the claims made in the story were libelous, noting that Harder took “no issue with the central thesis of the piece—that Mr. Ivari has worked on Donald Trump’s hair.”<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/27/opinion/inside-the-republicans-opposition-research-machine.html?r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/27/opinion/inside-the-republicans-opposition-research-machine.html?_r=0</a>The

vast right-wing conspiracy Hillary Rodham Clinton once cited in 1998

works from cluttered offices on Capitol Hill, led by a man who was in

high school when she first made the charge.Raj

Shah runs the Republican National Committee’s opposition research arm, a

beehive of two dozen tech-savvy idealists who have already spent two

years searching through decades of government documents, tax filings, TV

footage and news archives. One of their colleagues in Arkansas turns up

every day in the Clinton presidential library to probe the Clintons’

accumulated past. More than 330 Freedom of Information Act requests have

netted 11,000 pages of records, and counting. The R.N.C. has also

retained Mark Zaid, an attorney who also is representing the Gawker

website in suing the State Department over records from Mrs. Clinton’s

time as secretary of state.==BS
Mark S. Zaid, Esq.Mark S. Zaid specializes in

litigation and lobbying on matters relating to international

transactions, torts and crimes, national security, foreign sovereign and

diplomatic immunity, defamation (plaintiff) and the Freedom of

Information/Privacy Acts (FOI/PA).

<img title="Mark Zaid" src="http://www.markzaid.com/images/bio-mark-zaid-01.jpg" alt="Mark Zaid" align="left" height="115" hspace="10" vspace="0" width="170" />Through

his practice Mr. Zaid often represents former/current federal

employees, intelligence and military officers, Whistleblowers and others

who have grievances or have been wronged by agencies of the United

States Government or foreign governments, as well as members of the

media. Mr. Zaid teaches D.C. Bar Continuing Legal Education classes on

"Defending Security Clearances" and "The Basics of Filing and Litigating

Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Requests". He has been named as a

Washington, D.C. Super Lawyer every year since he was profiled in 2009,

as well as a "Best Lawyer" by Washingtonian Magazine in 2009, 2011, 2013

and 2015 (issued bi-annually), for his national security work. As the

National Law Journal once wrote, “if Agent Mulder ever needed a lawyer,

Zaid would be his man.”

Mr. Zaid is also the Executive Director

and founder of the James Madison Project, a Washington, D.C.-based

organization with the primary purpose of educating the public on issues

relating to intelligence gathering and operations, secrecy policies,

national security and government wrongdoing. Starting in January 2014,

Mr. Zaid also serves as an Adjunct Professor at Johns Hopkins University

teaching in the Global Studies/National Security Certificate programs.

In

connection with his legal practice on international and national

security matters, Mr. Zaid has testified before, or provided testimony

to, a variety of governmental bodies including the Senate Judiciary

Committee, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, the House

Judiciary Committee, the House Government Operations Committee, the

Department of Energy, the Public Interest Declassification Board and the

Assassination Records Review Board. “Curiously for this town," wrote

the American Bar Association Journal, "Zaid is an equal opportunity

thorn out to pierce the sides of suit jackets bearing both elephants and

donkeys on the lapels.”
 
A 1992 graduate of Albany Law School of

Union University in New York, where he served as an Associate Editor of

the Albany Law Review and is now a member of the school's Board of

Trustees, he completed his undergraduate education (cum laude) in 1989

at the University of Rochester, New York with honors in Political

Science and high honors in History. Mr. Zaid is a member of the Bars of

New York State, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Maryland and

several federal courts. He currently possesses TS/SCI eligibility and

has had Q level access.

He can be reached at <a title="mailto:mark@markzaid.com" href="mailto:mark@markzaid.com" target="_blank">mark@markzaid.com</a>.

To read Mark's Wikipedia entry, click <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Zaid" target="_blank">here</a>.

To watch a sample of Mark's media appearances, click <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/MarkSZaidEsq" target="_blank">here</a>.

To follow Mark on Twitter, click <a href="https://twitter.com/MarkSZaidEsq" target="blank">here</a>.To read Mark’s full CV, <a href="http://www.markzaid.com/files/MSZ-CV.2010.pdf" target="blank">click here</a>
punked/ so was NYT:chassy/folta scam<ol style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.625em; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1.25em; font-size: 18px; line-height: 25.2px;"><li style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Gawker: “<a href="http://gawker.com/the-food-babe-blogger-is-full-of-shit-1694902226" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">The ‘Food Babe’ Blogger Is Full of Shit</a>.” By Yvette d’Entremont, April 6.</li></ol>=<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker</a>Gawker is an American <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog" title="Blog" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">blog</a> founded by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Denton" title="Nick Denton" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Nick Denton</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Spiers" title="Elizabeth Spiers" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Elizabeth Spiers</a> and based in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City" title="New York City" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">New York City</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-nytpiece-2" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[2]</a> It promotes itself as "the source for daily Manhattan media news and gossip." It focuses on celebrities and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media" title="Mass media" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">media</a> industry.Founded in 2003, Gawker is the flagship blog for Denton's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker_Media" title="Gawker Media" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Gawker Media</a>. Gawker has created other blogs, including Defamer and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadspin" title="Deadspin" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Deadspin</a>, which covers sports.According to third-party <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_analytics" title="Web analytics" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">web analytics</a> provider <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SimilarWeb" title="SimilarWeb" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">SimilarWeb</a>, the site has over 23 million visits per month, as of 2015.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-3" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[3]</a>In July 2015, the site was rocked by scandal after Denton removed a controversial post from the site; Gawker editor in chief Max Read and Gawker Media executive editor Tommy Craggs resigned in protest.bought]<div id="toc" class="toc" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 7px; font-size: 13.3000001907349px; display: table; zoom: 1; color: rgb(37, 37, 37); background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><div id="toctitle" style="direction: ltr; text-align: center;">
</div><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0.3em 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#History" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">1 History</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#Content" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">2 Content</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#Controversies" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3 Controversies</a><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#Gawker_Stalker" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.1 Gawker Stalker</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#Tom_Cruise_video" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.2 Tom Cruise video</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-6" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#Sarah_Palin_email_leak" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.3 Sarah Palin email leak</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-7" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#Eric_Dane_and_Rebecca_Gayheart_sex_video" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.4 Eric Dane and Rebecca Gayheart sex video</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-8" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#Christine_O.27Donnell" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.5 Christine O'Donnell</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-9" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#WikiLeaks" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.6 WikiLeaks</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-10" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#Chris_Lee_Craigslist_emails" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.7 Chris Lee Craigslist emails</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-11" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#2010_data_breach_incident" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.8 2010 data breach incident</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-12" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#2012_Michael_Brutsch_unmasking" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.9 2012 Michael Brutsch unmasking</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-13" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#Hulk_Hogan_sex_tape" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.10 Hulk Hogan sex tape</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-14" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#Cond.C3.A9_Nast_CFO_escort_outing" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.11 Condé Nast CFO escort outing</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-15" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#References" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">4 References</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-16" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#External_links" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">5 External links</a></li></ul></div><h2 style="font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3; background: rgb(255, 255, 255) none repeat scroll 0% 0%;">History</h2>Gawker was founded by Nick Denton in 2002, after he left the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Times" title="Financial Times" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Financial Times</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-nytpiece-2" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[2]</a> It was originally edited by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Spiers" title="Elizabeth Spiers" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Elizabeth Spiers</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-4" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[4]</a> Gawker’s official launch was in December 2002<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-auto-5" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[5]</a> When Spiers left Gawker, she was replaced by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choire_Sicha" title="Choire Sicha" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Choire Sicha</a>, a former art dealer.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-auto-5" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[5]</a> Sicha was employed in this position from after her departure until August 2004, at which point he was replaced by Jessica Coen, and he became editorial director of<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker_Media" title="Gawker Media" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Gawker Media</a>. Sicha left for the New York Observer six months after his promotion.Later, in 2005, the editor position was split between two co-editors, and Coen was joined by guest editors from a variety of New York City-based blogs; Matt Haber was engaged as co-editor for several months, and Jesse Oxfeld joined for longer. In July 2006, Oxfeld's contract was not renewed, and Alex Balk was installed. Chris Mohney, formerly of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gridskipper" title="Gridskipper" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Gridskipper</a>, Gawker Media's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_blog" title="Travel blog" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">travel blog</a>, was hired for the newly created position of managing editor.On September 28, 2006, Coen announced in a post on Gawker that she would be leaving the site to become deputy online editor at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_Fair_magazine" title="Vanity Fair magazine" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Vanity Fair</a>. Balk shared responsibility for the Gawker site with co-editor <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Gould" title="Emily Gould" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Emily Gould</a>. Associate editor <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie_Shnayerson" title="Maggie Shnayerson" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Maggie Shnayerson</a> also began writing for the site; she replaced <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doree_Shafrir" title="Doree Shafrir" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Doree Shafrir</a>, who left in September 2007 for the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Observer" title="The New York Observer" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">New York Observer</a>.In February 2007, Sicha returned from his position at the The New York Observer, and replaced Mohney as the managing editor. On September 21, 2007, Gawker announced that Balk would depart to edit <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_Magazine" title="Radar Magazine" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Radarmagazine's</a> website; he would be replaced by Alex Pareene of Wonkette.The literary journal <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%2B1" title="N+1" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">n+1</a> published a long piece on the history and future of Gawker, concluding that, "You could say that as Gawker Media grew, from Gawker’s success, Gawker outlived the conditions for its existence".<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-6" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[6]</a>In 2008, weekend editor Ian Spiegelman quit Gawker because Denton fired his friend Sheila McClear without cause. He made that clear in several comments on the site at the time, also denouncing what he said was its practice of hiring <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-time" title="Full-time" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">full-time</a> employees as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_contractor" title="Independent contractor" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">independent contractors</a> in order to avoid paying <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax" title="Tax" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">taxes</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_benefits" title="Employment benefits" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">employment benefits</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-7" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[7]</a>On October 3, 2008, Gawker announced that 19 staff members were being laid off in response to expected <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932010" title="Financial crisis of 2007–2010" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">economic hardships in the coming months</a>. Most came from sites with low ad revenue.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-8" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[8]</a>On November 12, 2008, the company announced selling the popular blog site <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerist(blog)" title="Consumerist (blog)" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Consumerist</a> and the folding of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valleywag" title="Valleywag" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Valleywag</a>, with managing editor Owen Thomas being demoted to a columnist on Gawker, and the rest of the staff being laid off. Some members and staff writers complained that owner Nick Denton was looking to sell out all of the Gawker sites while they were still profitable.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-9" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[9]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-10" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[10]</a>In December 2009, Denton was nominated for "Media Entrepreneur of the Decade" by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adweek" title="Adweek" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Adweek</a>, and Gawker was named "Blog of the Decade" by the advertising trade. Brian Morrissey of Adweek said "Gawker remains the epitome of blogging: provocative, brash, and wildly entertaining".<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-11" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[11]</a>In February 2010, Denton announced that Gawker was acquiring the "people directory" site CityFile.com, and was hiring that site's editor and publisher, Remy Stern, as the new editor-in-chief of Gawker. Gabriel Snyder, who had been editor-in-chief for the previous 18 months and had greatly increased the site's readership, released a memo saying he was being let go from the job.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-12" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[12]</a>In December 2011, A. J. Daulerio, former editor-in-chief of Gawker Media sports site <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadspin" title="Deadspin" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Deadspin</a>, replaced Remy Stern as editor-in-chief at Gawker. The company replaced several other editors, contributing editors, and authors; others left. Richard Lawson went to the Atlantic Wire, a blog of the magazine, Atlantic Monthly. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-13" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[13]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-14" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[14]</a>In 2012, the website changed its focus away from editorial content and toward what its new <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editor-in-chief" title="Editor-in-chief" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">editor-in-chief</a> A. J. Daulerio called "traffic whoring" and "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization" title="Search engine optimization" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">SEO</a> bomb throws".<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-Traffic-15" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[15]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-WashPo-16" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[16]</a> In January 2013 Daulerio reportedly asked for more responsibility over other Gawker Media properties, but after a short time was pushed out by publisher Denton.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-17" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[17]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-18" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[18]</a> Daulerio was replaced as editor-in-chief by longtime Gawker writer John Cook.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-19" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[19]</a>In March 2014, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Read" title="Max Read" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Max Read</a> became the Gawker's editor-in-chief.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-Max_Read_Takes_Reins_at_Gawker-20" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[20]</a> In April 2014, using <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_slang" title="Internet slang" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">internet slang</a> was banned per new writing style guidelines.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-Gawker_bans.27Internet_slang.27-21" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[21]</a><sup id="cite_ref-Gawker_Rips_Buzzfeed_in_Ban_on.E2.80.98WTF.2C.E2.80.99.E2.80.98Epic.E2.80.99_and_Other_Internet_Slang_From_Its_Website_22-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; font-size: 11.1999998092651px; unicode-bidi: embed;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-Gawker_Rips_Buzzfeed_in_Ban_on.E2.80.98WTF.2C.E2.80.99.E2.80.98Epic.E2.80.99_and_Other_Internet_Slang_From_Its_Website-22" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[22]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-.E2.80.98Massive.E2.80.99_Attack:Gawker_Goes_After_Whopping_Word-23" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[23]</a><sup id="cite_ref-Gawker_Editor_Bans.27Internet_Slang.2C.27_Challenges_Staff_to.27Sound_Like_Regular_Human_Beings.27_24-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; font-size: 11.1999998092651px; unicode-bidi: embed;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-Gawker_Editor_Bans.27Internet_Slang.2C.27_Challenges_Staff_to.27Sound_Like_Regular_Human_Beings.27-24" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[24]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-A_ban_on_internet_slang.3F_That.27s_derp-25" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[25]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-Gawker_is_Trying_to_Use.27Adult.27_Language.Good_Luck_to_Them.-26" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[26]</a>In June of 2015, Gawker editorial staff voted to unionize.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-27" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[27]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-28" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[28]</a> Employees joined the Writers Guild of America. Approximately three-fourths of employees eligible to vote voted in favor of the decision. Gawker staff announced the vote on May 28th 2015.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-29" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[29]</a>Following the decision to delete a controversial story (See § <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#Cond.C3.A9_Nast_CFO_escort_outing" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Condé Nast CFO escort outing</a>, below.) Read and Gawker Media executive editor Tommy Craggs resigned in protest. Leah Beckmann, the site’s current deputy editor, took over as interim editor in chief.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-30" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[30]</a><h2 style="font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3; background: rgb(255, 255, 255) none repeat scroll 0% 0%;">Content[</h2>Gawker usually publishes more than 20 posts daily during the week, sometimes reaching 30 posts a day, with limited publishing on the weekends. The site also publishes content from its sister sites. Gawker's content consists of celebrity and media industry gossip, critiques of mainstream news outlets, and New York-centric stories. The stories generally come from anonymous tips from media employees, found mistakes and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faux_pas" title="Faux pas" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">faux pas</a> in news stories caught by readers and other blogs, and original reporting.On July 3, 2006, when publisher <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Denton" title="Nick Denton" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Nick Denton</a> replaced Jesse Oxfeld with Alex Balk, Oxfeld claimed it was an attempt to make the blog more <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream" title="Mainstream" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">mainstream</a> and less media-focused, ending a tradition of heavy media coverage at Gawker.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-31" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[31]</a><h2 style="font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3; background: rgb(255, 255, 255) none repeat scroll 0% 0%;">Controversies[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gawker&action=edit&section=3" title="Edit section: Controversies" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h2><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Gawker Stalker<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-size: small; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gawker&action=edit&section=4" title="Edit section: Gawker Stalker" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h3>On March 14, 2006, Gawker.com launched Gawker Stalker Maps, a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashup(web_application_hybrid)" title="Mashup (web application hybrid)" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">mashup</a> of the site's Gawker Stalker feature and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps" title="Google Maps" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Google Maps</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-32" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[32]</a> After this Gawker Stalker, originally a weekly roundup of celebrity sightings in New York City submitted by Gawker readers, was frequently updated, and the sightings are displayed on a map. The feature sparked criticism from celebrities and publicists for encouraging stalking. Actor and director <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Clooney" title="George Clooney" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">George Clooney</a>'s representative Stan Rosenfeld described Gawker Stalker as "a dangerous thing". Jessica Coen has said that the map is harmless, that Gawker readers are "for the most part, a very educated, well-meaning bunch", and that "if there is someone really intending to do a celebrity harm, there are much better ways to go about doing that than looking at the Gawker Stalker".<a class="external autonumber" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#endnote_msnbc_stalker" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(102, 51, 102); white-space: nowrap; padding: 0px !important; background: none !important;">[1]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-33" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[33]</a> On April 6, 2007,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Gould" title="Emily Gould" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Emily Gould</a> appeared on an edition of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_King_Live" title="Larry King Live" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Larry King Live</a> hosted by talk show host <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Kimmel" title="Jimmy Kimmel" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Jimmy Kimmel</a> during a panel discussion titled "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paparazzi" title="Paparazzi" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Paparazzi</a>: Do they go too far?" and was asked about the Gawker Stalker.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-auto1-34" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[34]</a> Kimmel accused the site of potentially assisting real <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking" title="Stalking" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">stalkers</a>, adding that Gould and her website could ultimately be responsible for someone's death. Kimmel continued to claim a lack of veracity in Gawker's published stories, and the potential for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel" title="Libel" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">libel</a> it presents. At the end of the exchange Gould said that she didn't "think it was OK" for websites to publish false information, after which Kimmel said she should "check your website then."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-auto1-34" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[34]</a> Gawker.com/stalker now redirects to gawker.com/tag/stalker and the map is no longer posted online.<h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Tom Cruise video<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-size: small; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gawker&action=edit&section=5" title="Edit section: Tom Cruise video" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h3>On January 15, 2008, Gawker mirrored the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology" title="Scientology" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Scientology</a> video featuring <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cruise" title="Tom Cruise" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Tom Cruise</a> from the recently removed posting on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube" title="YouTube" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">YouTube</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-35" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[35]</a> They soon posted a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright" title="Copyright" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">copyright</a> infringement notice written by lawyers for Scientology.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-36" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[36]</a> By July 2009, the video had not been removed and no lawsuit was filed.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-37" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[37]</a><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Sarah Palin email leak<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-size: small; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gawker&action=edit&section=6" title="Edit section: Sarah Palin email leak" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h3>On September 17, 2008, in reporting that pranksters associated with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4Chan" title="4Chan" class="mw-redirect" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);">4Chan</a> had hacked the personal e-mail account of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska" title="Alaska" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);">Alaska Governor</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States#Potential_Successors" title="Vice President of the United States" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);">vice presidential candidate</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin" title="Sarah Palin" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);">Sarah Palin</a>, Gawker published screenshots of the emails, photos, and address list obtained by the hackers.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-38" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[38]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-39" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[39]</a> While accessing personal e-mail accounts without authorization constitutes a federal crime, current DOJ interpretation of this statute following the decision in Theofel v. Farey-Jones is that perpetrators may be prosecuted only for reading "unopened" emails.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-40" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[40]</a> FBI Spokesman Eric Gonzalez in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchorage" title="Anchorage" class="mw-redirect" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);">Anchorage</a>, Alaska, confirmed that an investigation was underway.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-41" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[41]</a><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Eric Dane and Rebecca Gayheart sex video<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-size: small; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gawker&action=edit&section=7" title="Edit section: Eric Dane and Rebecca Gayheart sex video" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h3>On August 17, 2009, Gawker obtained and posted an exclusive video of actor <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Dane" title="Eric Dane" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Eric Dane</a> and his wife <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Gayheart" title="Rebecca Gayheart" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Rebecca Gayheart</a> naked with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kari_Ann_Peniche" title="Kari Ann Peniche" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Kari Ann Peniche</a>, beauty queen and former <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Teen_USA" title="Miss Teen USA" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Miss Teen USA</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-42" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[42]</a><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Christine O'Donnell<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-size: small; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gawker&action=edit&section=8" title="Edit section: Christine O'Donnell" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h3>On October 28, 2010, Gawker posted an anonymous post entitled, "I Had a One-Night Stand with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_O%27Donnell" title="Christine O'Donnell" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Christine O'Donnell</a>," discussing an alleged romantic encounter with the Republican nominee for the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate" title="United States Senate" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">United States Senate</a> in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware" title="Delaware" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Delaware</a>. However, according to the writer, O'Donnell only slept naked with the anonymous writer and did not have sex with him.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-43" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[43]</a> The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organization_for_Women" title="National Organization for Women" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">National Organization for Women</a> condemned the piece as "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut-shaming" title="Slut-shaming" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">slut-shaming</a>". NOW's president, Terry O'Neill, stated, "It operates as public sexual harassment. And like all sexual harassment, it targets not only O'Donnell, but all women contemplating stepping into the public sphere."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-44" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[44]</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon.com" title="Salon.com" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Salon</a>'s Justin Elliott criticized the ad hominem nature of the article, tweeting "Today, we are all Christine O'Donnell."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-45" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[45]</a> Gawker.com reportedly paid in the "low four figures" for the story. Denton defended it, praising its "brilliant packaging." <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-46" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[46]</a><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">WikiLeaks<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-size: small; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gawker&action=edit&section=9" title="Edit section: WikiLeaks" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h3>In December 2010, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System" title="Domain Name System" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">DNS</a> service for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks" title="WikiLeaks" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">WikiLeaks</a> went offline in the United States. Gawker misreported that easyDNS was to blame; <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EveryDNS" title="EveryDNS" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">EveryDNS</a> was the DNS provider for the domain wikileaks.org. Gawker responded to complaints from easyDNS:<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.3999996185303px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><dd style="margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">"We will fix. You do not get a tweet or correction. Now stop emailing and calling us, please."</dd></dl>easyDNS complained that it was unjustly scolded after Gawker had libeled them.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-47" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[47]</a><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Chris Lee Craigslist emails<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-size: small; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gawker&action=edit&section=10" title="Edit section: Chris Lee Craigslist emails" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h3>In February 2011, Gawker posted an email exchange between United States Congressman <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Lee(New_York_politician)" title="Chris Lee (New York politician)" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Chris Lee</a> and a woman he had met through a personal ad on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craigslist" title="Craigslist" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Craigslist</a>. The emails included the married Lee describing himself as a divorced lobbyist and a photo of him posing shirtless.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-WP1-48" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[48]</a> Lee resigned his Congressional seat within hours of Gawker's story.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-WP1-48" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[48]</a><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">2010 data breach incident<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-size: small; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gawker&action=edit&section=11" title="Edit section: 2010 data breach incident" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h3>On December 11, 2010, Gawker and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gizmodo" title="Gizmodo" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Gizmodo</a> were hacked by a group named Gnosis. The hackers gained <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_access" title="Root access" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">root access</a> to the Linux-based servers, access to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code" title="Source code" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">source code</a>, access to Gawker's custom <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_management_system" title="Content management system" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">CMS</a>, databases (including writer and user passwords), <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Apps" title="Google Apps" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Google Apps</a>, and real-time chat logs from Gawker's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campfire(software)" title="Campfire (software)" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Campfire</a> instance, in addition to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter" title="Twitter" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Twitter</a> accounts of Nick Denton and Gizmodo.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-49" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[49]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-50" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[50]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-Hall-51" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[51]</a> The hacker Group stated that they went after Gawker for their "outright arrogance" and for a previous feud between Gawker and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4Chan" title="4Chan" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">4Chan</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-Brian-52" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[52]</a> Gawker asked all its users to change their passwords<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-53" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[53]</a> and posted an advisory notice as well.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-54" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[54]</a>The following day, a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_dump" title="Database dump" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">database dump</a> of user credentials, chat logs, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code" title="Source code" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">source code</a> of the Gawker website were made available on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay" title="The Pirate Bay" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">The Pirate Bay</a>, among other <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_tracker" title="BitTorrent tracker" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">BitTorrent trackers</a>.<h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">2012 Michael Brutsch unmasking<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-size: small; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gawker&action=edit&section=12" title="Edit section: 2012 Michael Brutsch unmasking" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h3>On October 12, 2012, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Chen" title="Adrian Chen" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Adrian Chen</a> posted an article identifying <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit" title="Reddit" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Reddit</a> moderator <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violentacrez" title="Violentacrez" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Violentacrez</a> as Michael Brutsch.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-55" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[55]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-56" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[56]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-57" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[57]</a> In the days prior to publication of the story, Reddit's main politics channel, r/politics, and a number of other forums on the site banned Gawker links from their page;<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-58" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[58]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-59" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[59]</a> at one point, Gawker was banned from all of Reddit.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-60" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[60]</a><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Hulk Hogan sex tape</h3>On October 4, 2012, Daulerio posted a short clip of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulk_Hogan" title="Hulk Hogan" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);">Hulk Hogan</a> and Heather Clem, the estranged wife of radio personality <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubba_the_Love_Sponge" title="Bubba the Love Sponge" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);">Bubba the Love Sponge</a> having sex.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-61" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[61]</a> Hogan sent Gawker a cease-and-desist order to take the video down, but Denton refused. Denton cited the First Amendment and argued the accompanying commentary had news value. Judge Pamela Campbell issued an injunction ordering Gawker to take down the clip.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-62" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[62]</a> Hogan filed a lawsuit against Gawker and Denton for violating his privacy, asking for $100 million in damages.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-63" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[63]</a><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Condé Nast CFO escort outing<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-size: small; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gawker&action=edit&section=14" title="Edit section: Condé Nast CFO escort outing" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h3>On July 16, 2015, reporter Jordan Sargent posted a story about a gay porn star’s alleged text correspondence with an executive from a competing publisher, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cond%C3%A9_Nast" title="Condé Nast" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Condé Nast</a>. The article claimed the individual had planned to go to Chicago to meet the escort, and pay him $2,500 for sex. The post sparked heavy criticism for outing the executive, both internally and from outsiders.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-64" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[64]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-65" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[65]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-66" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[66]</a> Denton removed the story the next day, after Gawker Media's managing partnership voted 4-2 to remove the post — marking the first time the website had "removed a significant news story for any reason other than factual error or legal settlement."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-67" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[67]</a> On July 20, 2015, Gawker Media executive editor Tommy Craggs and Gawker.com editor-in-chief <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Read" title="Max Read" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Max Read</a> posted their resignations from the company, citing the lack of transparency by and independence from the company's management over the post's removal, rather than the concerns over the post's issues and received criticism, as the cause.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#cite_note-68" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[68]</a><div></div><div>// breitbart wkly st'd?</div><div>
</div><div>gawker (long)</div><div>
</div><div><div>Did Clinton's Backdoor Adviser Illegally Lobby for Putin Ally?</div><div>37,594 19 </div><div> </div><div>Sam Biddle</div><div>Filed to: HILLARY CLINTON 3/30/15 11:25am</div><div>
</div><div>Did Clinton's Backdoor Adviser Illegally Lobby for Putin Ally?</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Hillary Clinton says there is nothing to hide in her scandalous personal email account, now apparently half-deleted. But leaked emails from her longtime confidant Sidney Blumenthal show that he and another former official from Bill Clinton's administration were secretly lobbying the secretary of state on behalf of a billionaire in the former Soviet state of Georgia who was seeking closer ties with Putin's Russia—seemingly in violation of a federal law designed to prevent foreign powers from covertly wielding influence within the United States.</div><div>
</div><div>As Gawker reported last week in collaboration with ProPublica, emails from Blumenthal's hacked account revealed that he was running what amounts to a private, off-the-books intelligence operation for Clinton, sending her detailed reports on goings-on in Libya, Europe, and elsewhere. Among these memos is one urging Clinton to consider re-examining the State Department's posture toward the opposition in Georgia.</div><div>
</div><div> </div><div>Leaked Private Emails Reveal Ex-Clinton Aide's Secret Spy Network</div><div>Starting weeks before Islamic militants attacked the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya,…</div><div>Read more</div><div>
</div><div>In 2012, Georgia was gearing up to elect a new prime minister. Oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili led the opposition Georgian Dream party, which called for closer relations with Russia—a state that had invaded Georgia only four years earlier. He was opposing the incumbent President Mikheil Saakashvili, who had enjoyed U.S. support.</div><div>
</div><div>Ivanishvili was eager to meet with then-Secretary of State Clinton, but found himself snubbed during a state visit in June 2012. In September 2012, Blumenthal prepared a long, official-looking memo for Clinton on the subject of the Georgian election. It passed along a note from John Kornblum, an international lawyer who had served as ambassador to Germany under Bill Clinton. According to Blumenthal's memo, Kornblum was "working with the political party in Georgia opposing Saakashvili"; contemporaneous press accounts corroborate the fact that Kornblum was formally acting as an adviser to Georgian Dream.</div><div>
</div><div>Blumenthal's preamble to the memo warned that Georgia "could be a potential hot spot a month before the U.S. election" if Saakashvili decided to "ratchet up tensions with Russia" as a political maneuver. Though he wrote that he was passing on Kornblum's memo "without comment," it is clear that Blumenthal thought the ideas should be taken seriously.</div><div>
</div><div>Did Clinton's Backdoor Adviser Illegally Lobby for Putin Ally?</div><div>
</div><div>Kornblum's memo was a full-throated plea for Clinton to warn Saakashvili not to crack down on Georgian Dream before the elections. Continued support for Saakashvili, he wrote, "would turn Georgia into a Caucasian Cuba and make sure we never had a reasonable security relationship with Russia." Kornblum also passed along a personal letter to Clinton from Ivanishvili himself, in which Ivanishvili accused Saakashvili of undemocratically attacking his party and asking for Clinton's support: "The Georgian people are waiting for a clear signal that America understands and supports their dreams for democracy."</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Kornblum wasn't just a geopolitical hobbyist. He was a lobbyist for a pro-Putin politician who was exploiting a connection to the secretary of state. Blumenthal, perhaps eager to get a chance to play diplomat after being rejected for an official State gig, happily played middle-man. The memo clearly constitutes evidence that Kornblum sought to influence U.S. policy on behalf of a foreign political leader, and that he enlisted Blumenthal for help in that project.</div><div>
</div><div>Generally speaking, it's fine to lobby U.S. officials on behalf of a foreign power, as long as you register with the U.S. Department of Justice. If you don't register, it's a crime.</div><div>
</div><div>The Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, known as FARA, is designed to prevent undisclosed meddling in American politics by foreign interests. At its heart, FARA is a transparency law—if you're working for a Chinese bank or a Turkish minister while inside the U.S., you're required to disclose your affiliation along with some financial details about the relationship. According to the statute, anyone who attempts to "influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States...with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations of a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party" must register with the Justice Department within 10 days of doing so.</div><div>
</div><div>Neither Kornblum nor Blumenthal filed reports with the Justice Department disclosing their efforts to lobby Clinton on behalf of Georgian Dream, according to a search of the FARA online database. Other U.S. citizens who did register as operatives of Georgian Dream include Al Gordon, CEO of D.C.-based lobbying firm National Strategies, LLC, and Romano Romani, CEO of the public relations firm Parry and Romani Associates Inc.</div><div>
</div><div>Gawker spoke to four attorneys who specialize in FARA to ask whether Kornblum and Blumenthal were required by the law to report their activities on behalf of Ivanishvili. One, who spoke on the record, said it sounded like an apparent attempt to short-circuit the normal legal process by routing the contact through Blumenthal, who was not a government official, rather than Kornblum directly reaching out to the State Department. The three others, all of whom insisted on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject matter, said in no uncertain terms that Blumenthal and Kornblum both should have registered before lobbying Clinton.</div><div>
</div><div>Amos Jones, a Washington, D.C., attorney and FARA expert and Assistant Professor at Campbell Law School, said the contact was a "legal-loophole-laundering dynamic"—a way to dodge FARA. "If they were clients of my firm, I would be looking very closely," he said. "[Their behavior] raises questions of compliance with the statute."</div><div>
</div><div>Another FARA attorney who spoke only on background said that both men should have registered for their attempts to influence Clinton. Even Blumenthal's single email to Clinton relaying Kornblum's concerns, the attorney said, obligated him to register under the law. "Technically, there's no minimum," he said. All that matters is "if you are acting at the request of a foreign government in an attempt to influence American political interests." A second FARA attorney who also spoke on background agreed with this assessment.</div><div>
</div><div>A third attorney deeply versed in the FARA statute said Kornblum and Blumenthal's efforts were precisely "the type of activity that is meant to be captured" by the law, even if the lobbying is done on an informal basis: FARA covers "anybody who's [lobbying] directly or indirectly," he added. "If you could just hire a middle man to get out of registration, it would be a giant loophole in the law," he said. If a foreign entity tried to launder influence through unregistered individuals, he said, "the Department of Justice would have a problem with that."</div><div>
</div><div>The purpose of FARA is narrow and clear. The Department of Justice website points out specifically that "in 1966, FARA was significantly amended to focus on the integrity of the United States Government decision-making process, and to emphasize agents seeking economic or political advantage for their clients." Ivanishvili's consultants in America with duties as lightweight as mailing out DVDs and tweeting links were compelled to register and document their activities to the Justice Department, as D.C.-based firm National Strategies, LLC, did:</div><div>
</div><div>Did Clinton's Backdoor Adviser Illegally Lobby for Putin Ally?</div><div>
</div><div>It's hard to imagine how someone with a direct line to the State Department would feel exempt from the law when SEO jockeys were not.</div><div>
</div><div>Kornblum did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Reached by Gawker on his cell phone, Blumenthal hung up when asked about the memo.</div><div>
</div><div>Gawker attempted to reach Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon to ask whether the department intended to launch an investigation into Blumenthal and Kornblum's failure to register. The maximum penalty for willfully violating FARA is up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Fallon did not return repeated phone calls or emails. On April 1, he will leave the Justice Department to join Clinton's presidential campaign as press secretary.</div><div>[docs]</div></div><div>
</div><div></div><div>Gawker Media executive editor Tommy Craggs and Gawker.com editor-in-chief Max Read will resign from their positions at the digital media company, <a href="http://gawker.com/tommy-craggs-and-max-read-are-resigning-from-gawker-1719002144?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_twitter&utm_source=gawker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(46, 109, 157); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(212, 212, 212); zoom: 1;">Gawker reported Monday</a>. The news comes days after the site published — <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/07/17/gawker-does-the-right-thing-erases-piece-on-conde-nast-executive/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(46, 109, 157); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(212, 212, 212); zoom: 1;">and then removed</a> — a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/07/17/conde-nast-exec-story-gawker-is-keeping-its-sleaze-game-in-shape/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(46, 109, 157); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(212, 212, 212); zoom: 1;">widely condemned post</a> about the personal life of Conde Nast’s chief financial officer.“I am able to do this job to the extent that I can believe that the people in charge are able, when faced with difficult decisions, to back up their stated commitments to transparency, fearlessness, and editorial independence,” Read wrote in a memo to the managing board of Gawker Media, the online publisher whose sites include Jezebel, Deadspin, Gizmodo, io9 and Lifehacker.“In the wake of Friday’s decision and Tommy’s resignation I can no longer sustain that belief. I find myself forced to resign, effective immediately.”Gawker also published a memo from Craggs to the Gawker Media editorial staff “as a means of explaining why I have to resign as executive editor.”“On Friday, I told my fellow managing partners — Nick Denton, founder and CEO; Heather Dietrick, president; Andrew Gorenstein, president of advertising and partnerships; Scott Kidder, chief operating officer; and Erin Pettigrew, chief strategy officer — I would have to resign if they voted to remove a story I’d edited and approved,” Craggs’s memo reads. “The article, about the Condé Nast CFO’s futile effort to secure a remote assignation with a pricey escort, had become radioactive.”Craggs also said that “advertisers such as Discover and BFGoodrich were either putting holds on their campaigns or pulling out entirely” in response to the piece.Gawker.com published, and then removed, a post late last week about text messages that a Conde Nast executive allegedly sent to a male escort. The post was widely criticized for, among other things, “outing” the executive. Gawker’s founder, Nick Denton, announced Friday that the post would be removed.</div>Our union drive has expressed at every stage of the process that one of our core goals is to protect the editorial independence of Gawker Media sites from the influence of business-side concerns. Today’s <a href="http://nick.kinja.com/taking-a-post-down-1718581684" target="_blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(0, 147, 236); line-height: 24px; text-decoration: none; font-size: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">unprecedented breach of the firewall</a>, in which business executives deleted an editorial post over the objections of the entire executive 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 a majority of non-editorial managers. Disagreements about editorial judgment are matters to be resolved by editorial employees. We condemn the takedown in the strongest possible terms.