
The Cowardice of Nick Denton - jessaustin
http://www.richardbradley.net/shotsinthedark/2015/07/18/the-cowardice-of-nick-denton/
======
hristov
I should point out that this post shaming the Conde Nast CFO followed about
three raving angry posts against reddit that were submitted on the same day.
Reddit of course is owned by Conde Nast. Considering that gawker usually has
no more than 10-20 posts per day on the main site, it is extremely unusual for
four of them to be aimed at the same company.

Furthermore, in an interview in pando daily, an ex Gawker editor said that
Nick Denton once complained to him that silicon valley companies "do not fear
me anymore."

For someone that has followed Gawker for many years now it is becoming
increasingly likely that Nick Denton is using Gawker to scare/blackmail other
companies to do his bidding. Gawker has always had periods of intense
criticisms of some company (Google for example) that start and end suddenly
without rhyme or reason.

The fact that Nick Denton eventually took down this post of course does not
matter at all. The damage has been done.

My guess is that old Nick Denton wants something out of Conde Nast, and that
is why he is applying full pressure.

------
rubbingalcohol
Agree 100% with this post.

Gawker's response to this controversy demonstrates that they are amoral. Yes,
they fucked up by posting it in the first place, but the response--removing
the post and having the CEO issue this mealy-mouthed non-apology reflects an
unscrupulous mentality. A) you can't take something back on the Internet, you
can only discuss and move on from it, and B) Denton isn't sorry for posting,
and his tone amounts to "I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't
for you meddling kids."

Ever since Gizmodo got kicked out of CES for drunken stupidity I have not
respected Gawker. Every time they sink to a new low, they embrace it with
enthusiasm and pride. This latest example really shows their true colors
though. Gawker has no moral compass. Anyone who advertises on any of their
properties should be ashamed.

Someone should dox all their executives and see how they like that. Bonus
points for taking it down the next day and saying "sorry, not sorry."

------
minimaxir
The odd thing about this entire kerfuffle is that other Gawker network writers
argue that the story should have stayed because of journalistic integrity.
Natasha Vargas-Cooper of Jezebel posted "Stories don't need an upside. Not
everyone has to feel good about the truth."
([https://twitter.com/natashavc/status/621858660319297536](https://twitter.com/natashavc/status/621858660319297536))
and Jason Schreier of Kotaku posted an interesting list of considerations
([http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=172267922#post1...](http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=172267922#post172267922)):

 _1) If a separate branch of your company did something that disgusted you,
would you jump on Twitter to criticize it, or would you take the time to have
conversations internally and see what was being done rather than getting angry
on social media? Even if you were unhappy after that, do you believe raging
publicly would help? Especially when you work for an entirely different entity
and have nothing to do with decision-making at the branch in question?

2) Is it possible to simultaneously believe A) that the article was vile and
should have never been published; and B) that the business department of a
news organization should never, ever have the right to make editorial
decisions in any way?

3) Is it also possible to believe that no matter how harmful or horrible an
article may be, it should never be removed, because that's not how the
internet works? Because you can't just make something go away? And because
when a news organization makes mistakes, the best move is to update,
apologize, correct, clarify, follow up... not to erase something and pretend
it never happened?_

This seems to indicate that the issue is more about ignorance of journalistic
ethics than malice.

------
Simulacra
I respectfully disagree with this on the grounds of hypocrisy. When the media
splashes on the front pages the sordid sex lives of heterosexual people, no
one bats and eye. It's eagerly repeated, reported, and becomes fodder for news
pundits and comedians. Yet when it's a gay person, everyone loses their
fucking minds. Why? I think that's hypocrisy and a double standard. I am a gay
man and I think the outing of ANYONES private life, gay or straight or
anything else, is a gross injustice.

------
dang
Gawker has been banned on HN for years. Spillover gawkery seems just as off-
topic, not that the indignation isn't justified.

We've penalized this post, but won't kill it, because the thread has some good
comments.

