Gawker just ruined a man's life
- Page 1 of 1
Pretty dangerous to be sending pics and cash to escorts but man, this is fucked up.
http://gawker.com/conde-nasts-cfo-tried-to-pay-2-500-for-a-night-with-a-1718364339
http://gawker.com/conde-nasts-cfo-tried-to-pay-2-500-for-a-night-with-a-1718364339
By Forever Go To PostWhat the fuck.Conde Nast owns Reddit and other stuff. Pub company, competition or hard feelings, who knows.
Why even post this? Also fuck Gawker.
who does not want to reveal his identity for professional reasons, but whom we will call RyanSo it's cool of him to out someone else but his identity will be kept secret for "professional reasons."
Nah breh.
This is fucked up.
Geitner wasn't even a jerk about his identity being discovered, paid the guy the remaining money, and the escort ruined his life anyway. Also Gawker ran this story regardless of the fucked up motive of the Escort who Gawker felt they needed to protect the identity of.
Geitner wasn't even a jerk about his identity being discovered, paid the guy the remaining money, and the escort ruined his life anyway. Also Gawker ran this story regardless of the fucked up motive of the Escort who Gawker felt they needed to protect the identity of.
By Zeus Ex Machina Go To PostThis is fucked up.
Geitner wasn't even a jerk about his identity being discovered, paid the guy the remaining money, and the escort ruined his life anyway. Also Gawker ran this story regardless of the fucked up motive of the Escort who Gawker felt they needed to protect the identity of.
They also probably paid him too. Someone needs to expose this guy
By db Go To PostSo it's cool of him to out someone else but his identity will be kept secret for "professional reasons."This isn't the first time Gawker has done some shit like this. I think the most recent was the Hulk Hogan sex tape where they pretty much told a judge fuck off, we're gonna keep it on the site even though you told us not to
Nah breh.
but then cried about The Fappening and how it breached privacy.
It's important to note that this makes Gawker complicit by abetting a blackmailing scheme. Condé Nast, the company this man is CFO of, owns Reddit. Reddit is a competitor of Gawker, and one that they've recently been running several derisive stories on.
So they're going to get so fucking sued it's going to be insane.
So they're going to get so fucking sued it's going to be insane.
By Fenderputty Go To PostHonestly, have they done any quality reporting? The only thing I ever see linked to them is trashFunny enough they got a lot of shit for revealing who violentacrez (reddit troll) was and people were posting stuff like "how far will Gawker go?" Seems they proved all the slippery slope people right, ewww.
By giririsss Go To Postthats's a disgusting piece of reporting.They should be destroyed.
They should be ashamed.
https://twitter.com/PerezHilton/status/621914074020999168
^ welp here is the escort in question...... he sooooo looks trustworthy as a source
^ welp here is the escort in question...... he sooooo looks trustworthy as a source
By giririsss Go To Postthats's a disgusting piece of reporting.Unless you're Jennifer Lawrence, this is what Gawker does.
They should be ashamed.
By JayEleven Go To PostDude should sue the fuck out of them. He should own Gawker by the end of it.Yeah, if Hulk Hogan doesn't get it all first.
They caved to pressure and took it down:
http://gawker.com/gawker-is-removing-story-about-conde-nast-cfo-1718582003
http://nick.kinja.com/taking-a-post-down-1718581684
I think doing that is almost worse than putting it up in the first place
http://gawker.com/gawker-is-removing-story-about-conde-nast-cfo-1718582003
http://nick.kinja.com/taking-a-post-down-1718581684
I think doing that is almost worse than putting it up in the first place
By cloudy Go To PostThey caved to pressure and took it down:Damage is done. They can't even save face at this point.
http://gawker.com/gawker-is-removing-story-about-conde-nast-cfo-1718582003
http://nick.kinja.com/taking-a-post-down-1718581684
I think doing that is almost worse than putting it up in the first place
Gawker is shit.
The EIC of Gawker, Max Read, posted this on twitter:
So, we can skip the moral high ground argument. We have no idea what this guy's situation is with his wife, nor is he an outspoken anti-gay activist. It's just straight up digging into people's private lives and airing their laundry for clicks, and, as some columnists for the NY Times and others have pointed out, straight up abetting another man's blackmail attempt.
UNREAL.
max read @max_read 18h18 hours ago
given the chance gawker will always report on married c-suite executives of major media companies fucking around on their wives
So, we can skip the moral high ground argument. We have no idea what this guy's situation is with his wife, nor is he an outspoken anti-gay activist. It's just straight up digging into people's private lives and airing their laundry for clicks, and, as some columnists for the NY Times and others have pointed out, straight up abetting another man's blackmail attempt.
UNREAL.
I don't understand the gendering here. Not that it's particularly decent of them to out cheating spouses to the world but targeting only husbands stepping out? Uh.
By db Go To PostI don't understand the gendering here. Not that it's particularly decent of them to out cheating spouses to the world but targeting only husbands stepping out? Uh.
Or, now that you mention it, the implied heteronormativity of it.
Gawker has claimed progressive politics in the past, but it's really just as bad as other gossip rags.
By db Go To PostI don't understand the gendering here. Not that it's particularly decent of them to out cheating spouses to the world but targeting only husbands stepping out? Uh.They need to keep Jezebel relevant somehow.
Gawker Media's Executive Editor and Gawker's editor-in-chief are resigning: http://gawker.com/tommy-craggs-and-max-read-are-resigning-from-gawker-1719002144
Not because of shame or misconduct, but because the story was *taken down.*
Not because of shame or misconduct, but because the story was *taken down.*
I understand the principle of marketing having no say on editorial decisions, but I wish that principle applied to reporting actual news and not working with blackmailers.
By KingGondo Go To PostGawker Media's Executive Editor and Gawker's editor-in-chief are resigning: http://gawker.com/tommy-craggs-and-max-read-are-resigning-from-gawker-1719002144Launch smear campaigns against completely irrelevant people brehs.
Not because of shame or misconduct, but because the story was *taken down.*
By KingGondo Go To PostGawker Media's Executive Editor and Gawker's editor-in-chief are resigning: http://gawker.com/tommy-craggs-and-max-read-are-resigning-from-gawker-1719002144
Not because of shame or misconduct, but because the story was *taken down.*
It might not of been why/how I wanted to see them lose their jobs, but at least they lost their jobs
