Maybe it was Natasha Vargas-Cooper, a senior reporter at Gawker sister site Jezebel who said it best when she tweeted this explanation: “I’m EXTREMELY suspicious of those who do not want press to have an antagonistic relationship to people in power.” Other editors, like John Cook, tweeted their own dissension without justification. Perhaps the closest thing to an actual rationale came in the form of a tweet issued by Gawker editor Max Read: “given the chance gawker will always report on married c-suite executives of major media companies f**king around on their wives.”Įloquent as that is pithy, it’s not exactly convincing unless Read is trying to put Gawker in the dubious position of being some kind of morality watchdog. But principled stands generally benefit from an articulation of actual principles. In lieu of an explanation of their position, they released a statement objecting to the business side of the publication yanking the article. What exactly Gawker editors were thinking still isn’t entirely clear. Not helping matters is un-publishing that article, a meaningless gesture on the Internet given the ease with which this content already spread virally and can still be retrieved outside of. That’s the kind of environment that produces an article essentially aiding a porn actor attempting to blackmail an individual who isn’t a public figure nor has any other remote claim to newsworthiness.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |