Gawker on Friday removed a controversial story about a media executive soliciting a male escort who later attempted to extort him, after the decision to post the piece received widespread condemnation on social media. Nick Denton, the site’s founder and chief of Gawker Media, wrote in a post that he regretted publishing the story, which ran on Thursday evening, but maintained that its allegations were true…. “The story involves extortion, illegality and reckless behavior, sufficient justification at least in tabloid news terms,” Denton wrote. “The account was true and well-reported. It concerns a senior business executive at one of the most powerful media companies on the planet.”
I’m a long-time fan of Gawker. Over the years, I think they’ve had a net positive impact on the world through their (often irreverent) reporting. That’s why this story distresses me. When I first read the article in question, I was stunned by the nature of it. It seemed, even after a second reading, to be little more than an attempt to embarrass a powerful man (whom I won’t name because there’s no need to) because he was looking to get something on the down low. Why this sort of thing would be considered newsworthy by a media outlet possessing even the barest familiarity with journalistic ethics defies rational understanding. At best it was a ham-handed attempt to make news out of something not remotely close to being newsworthy. At worst it was a shameful attempt to out someone without their consent or knowledge, a clear case of what could be described as journalistic gay bashing.
Almost worse than the article itself was Gawker’s reaction to it. After the predictable and justified outrage on the Internet, Gawker pulled the article and Denton published a non-apologetic apologia. Instead of accept responsibility for Gawker’s hit job, Denton wrote of “a growing recognition that we all have secrets, and they are not all equally worthy of exposure.” Instead of doing the decent thing and offering a sincere apology to the person outed, Denton said, “does not rise to the level that our flagship site should be publishing” and how “The point of this story was not in my view sufficient to offset the embarrassment to the subject and his family.”
At no point does Denton offer an apology, except in a very oblique manner, for the shame and embarrassment caused to the subject of the article and his family. The behavior of the subject of the piece may not have been above reproach, but that’s a matter to be sorted out by him and his family. It’s not fodder for tabloids, and outing him as Gawker did serves no useful journalistic purpose. At the very least, Gawker owes the subject of the article a sincere apology. It likely won’t (and probably shouldn’t) be enough to stave off the inevitable lawsuit, but it would have been the decent thing to do.
As for the Gawker editorial staff, who were (and evidently still are) incensed that the story was taken down, I’d have to ask how they can in good conscience engage in a brand of “journalism” whose sole purpose appears to be the personal destruction of a powerful man newsworthy only for being related to a former White House Cabinet member. Since when does being a public figure make one’s private life fodder for shoddy tabloid journalism?
One of the commenters on the editorial staff’s post summed it up quite well:
Yeah, no. You immoral assclowns obviously aren’t grown up enough to make these decisions by yourselves. This should be a motherfucking apology you scumbags.
And another take:
“Grown up” hits the nail on the head. Throughout this entire ordeal I kept thinking, “This is why high school newspapers have faculty advisors.” This entire enterprise is sorely lacking in adult leadership….
I get that the nature of journalism in the age of the weblog is often buffeted by the winds of competition, but “getting it first” is NOT the functional equivalent of “getting it right.” Nick Denton, as well as the editorial staff of Gawker seem neither to understand nor care about the damage they may well have done. This isn’t about justifying the philandering of a powerful man looking for something on the down low. It’s about sticking to journalistic standards that ensure that a story has actual news value and isn’t designed to attract page views merely for its salacious nature.
It might have helped the “journalists” at Gawker to have familiarized themselves with the Barney Frank Rule, which basically holds that “Hey, let’s f—k a guy over FOR NO REASON besides the fact that we’re whores for web traffic” is NOT a hallmark of sound, serious journalism. Somewhere warm and breezy, Peter Jennings and Walter Cronkite are retching into their Dos Equis….
We all make mistakes, some worse than others. Lord knows I’ve made my share over the 14 years I’ve been holding this blog together with the written equivalent of chicken wire and duct tape. The lesson to be take from this is to man up and admit your mistakes. Own it, apologize for it, and do what you can to make things right. Overestimating your importance and place in the journalistic pantheon only serves to make you appear even more clueless, self-righteous, and self-important that you’ve demonstrated yourself to be.
Gawker screwed up…and it appears neither Nick Denton nor the editorial staff has the decency or the cojones to own their $#&%up and apologize. If that isn’t the definition of cowardice, I don’t know what would be.
