SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Tommy Craggs, Gawker Media's executive editor, and Max Read, the website's editor in chief, have resigned from Gawker after the removal of a widely-panned article, a move they say represents an "indefensible breach of the notoriously strong firewall between Gawker's business interests and the independence of its editorial staff":
At issue is a post published July 16 about a media executive who Gawker said sought a nighttime encounter with a gay porn star. The porn star, the site reported, tried to extort the executive, who is married to a woman.
The story was widely criticized because, as some people pointed out, the media executive is a private individual [and] not a public figure. Then on July 17, Gawker's Managing Partnership voted 4-2 to remove the post. Craggs and Heather Dietrick, Gawker's president who serves as the company's chief legal counsel, dissented.
Here's what Glenn Greenwald had to say about Gawker's story:
The story had no purpose other than to reveal that the male, married-to-a-woman Chief Financial Officer of a magazine company – basically an executive accountant – hired a male escort. When the escort discovered the real-life identity of his prospective client – he's the brother of a former top Obama official – he began blackmailing the CFO by threatening to expose him unless he used his political connections to help the escort in a housing discrimination case he had against a former landlord. Gawker completed the final step of the blackmail plot by publishing the text messages between the two and investigating and confirming the identity of the client, all while protecting the identity of the blackmailing escort.
[...] The reasons for regarding the story as deeply repugnant are self-evident. The CFO they outed is not a public figure. Even if he were, the revelation has zero public interest: it's not as though he's preached against gay rights or any form of sexual behavior. It's just humiliating someone and trying to destroy his life for fun, for its own sake. By publishing the article, Gawker aided the escort's blackmail plot, arguably even becoming a partner in it. Even worse, the story (probably unwittingly) reeks of all-too-familiar homophobic shaming: it's supposed to be humiliating at least in part because he's a man hiring a "gay porn star," as Gawker editor-in-chief Max Read put it as he promoted the "scoop." The escort's identity has been confirmed by others and he seems to have a history of serious mental distress, which Gawker is clearly exploiting. Beyond all that, Gawker has an ongoing war with Reddit, owned by the magazine company for which the CFO works, which suggests this is part of some petty, vindictive drive for vengeance, with the CFO as collateral damage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 21 2015, @06:29AM
So it seems that David Geithner (CFO of Condé Nast), brother of Timothy Geithner [wikipedia.org] (important politician), cheated on his wife with a male prostitute. It seems the prostitute tried to blackmail David to use his connections to help him with a discrimination lawsuit -- and failed. All this reported in sleazy tabloids like The Washington Post [washingtonpost.com].
Conclusions:
Anyone can gleefully report on the private life of David Geithner without much consequences, if they report it as "look how mean Gawker is".
One or both of David Geithner and/or Timothy Geithner was willing to reject a blackmail threat of this sort.
Neither of the Geithners was publically anti-gay (to my knowledge).
Gay porn star discrimination lawsuits in Texas will be receiving a lot more attention than usual, which might accomplish the blackmailer's goals anyways.
Expect our prison population to increase by one mentally unstable gay pornstar prostitute who might have forgotten that blackmail is illegal and should be done discretely.
It's horribly evil to report on a secretly gay CFO cheating on his wife (but fine to kick out a president for getting a blowjob).
If you're going to get caught committing adultery, it helps to be a bigshot at a large media company and to exploit membership in a discriminated-against minority to turn cheating on your wife into something you deserve sympathy for.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Kell on Tuesday July 21 2015, @07:23AM
Except that it's presumptuous to assume that he was cheating. For all you know his wife is perfectly happy with his conduct. That's their business and by right should have stayed that way.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Tuesday July 21 2015, @07:44AM
It's not presumptuous, that's the status quo for marriage. I get that people like to be edgy by pointing out that it might be something the spouse has granted permission for. But, let's be honest about it, that's definitely not the normal situation in these cases and we're unlikely to ever learn otherwise. In cases where the individual is a "moral leader" we can judge them on it, in other cases it's not really our business either way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 21 2015, @12:44PM
> But, let's be honest about it, that's definitely not the normal situation in these cases
Is it the normal situation for a gay man who is married to a woman? Really?
(Score: 3, Funny) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday July 21 2015, @01:41PM
It is if you're a fan of Orson Scott Card.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Tuesday July 21 2015, @02:25PM
If your a gay man that's married to a woman, then you need to man up and deal with it rather than exposing your wife to whatever you pick up with that gay sex.
It's the same rule as if you're straight. You don't expose your spouse to illnesses because you're not enough of an adult to admit that there's a problem. A gay man is a gay man and very few are going to be genuinely happy being married to a woman. If you're that unhappy, then the spouse has a right to know about it. She might choose to give you the OK, but it's something that she has a right to know about. An open-marriage is one thing, but this is adultery and not OK.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday July 21 2015, @07:53PM
If only somebody had invented simple latex devices that prevented disease spreading during sex. Oh right, they did, and most sex workers insist on using them.
Also, you seem to be ignoring the very real possibility that the man in question was bisexual - that is, he could enjoy sleeping with his wife, and with the male escort too.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Francis on Wednesday July 22 2015, @04:59AM
Condoms greatly reduce the risk of some infections, not all. And even if the condom appears good it might have a manufacturing defect. Yes, that is rare, but it's not nonzero either.
(Score: 3, Informative) by penguinoid on Tuesday July 21 2015, @10:38PM
Why is it OK for a rich guy to commit a crime?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
Prostitution in the United States is illegal, except in some rural counties of the state of Nevada.
Why is it OK for a rich guy to have an affair (compare to public opinion on the threatened release of that affair's site information)? Is it because he's gay?
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Wednesday July 22 2015, @03:15AM
Except that having an affair or using an escort service are not the same thing as prostitution, and there is no evidence that he did anything illegal or intended to. In most countries there is a supposition of innocence until guilt is proven.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.