Apologies for continuing to post about all this, but I’m one of those terrible “former journalist who loves navel-gazing journalism stories” people. However, rather than constantly posting a new story every time someone posts something about Gawkergate (Gawkerpocalypse? Gawkerghazi?), I figure I’d just wrangle a roundup of interesting articles and then go play some video games or something. Enjoy!
- Brendan James at the International Business Times got quotes from Nick Denton and Alex Pareene.
First: Duck season!
“The piece was extraordinary. I don’t think one should read in too much of a precedent,” Denton told IBT in an email.
“It was, by definition, setting a precedent,” Gawker editor Alex Pareene told IBT.
And then there’s this:
“Nick has no chance of winning back the trust of senior editorial staff,” [Pareene] told IBT. “Best case is the union wins the right to exempt editorial decisions (not hiring and firing but publication and unpublication) from being voted on by business and tech.”
- Tom Scocca spoke to his former colleague, the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple. Apparently the meetings will continue tomorrow (so be ready for another light posting day, I guess?) as they attempt to move forward. Scocca, for his part, wasn’t particulary impressed with the way the meeting went down:
“It was pretty annoying and crappy,” says Scocca. “Nick got up and tried to express his belief that this was anything other than him freaking out about Twitter and he offered some historically dubious claims about his own record and journalistic priorities that people were able to challenge on the spot.” Denton claimed that the story lay outside of Gawker’s editorial tradition, while staffers, including Scocca, protested that it’s just the sort of stuff he had encouraged for years. “There was a lot to dispute in Nick’s analysis and we disputed it,” recalls Scocca.
- This general sentiment is also in Jonathan Mahler’s New York Times piece, which features quotes from Scocca, Tommy Craggs(!) and Lacey Donohue:
In this sense, the decision to take down the post was less a capitulation than a repudiation of Gawker’s identity.
“Nick saw this as a pretext for remaking Gawker in the way that he wanted to remake it,” Mr. Craggs said in an interview. “If it cost him the core values of the company, then so be it.”
- Finally, to end things on a high note, Wonkette EIC Rebecca Schoenkopf
offers her take on things:
See, it wasn’t “the business side” dictating to editorial, no matter how huffily you say so in your VERY too long and super whiny (not Read’s so much as Craggs’s) resignation letters. The guy in charge of getting Best Buy to purchase native ads didn’t go into your Kinja and yank the marvelous muckraking journalism about how a media company CFO was trying to get his dick wet with poo. It was Gawker Media’s board of directors who deleted that post, including, rather relevantly, its founder and owner (who, yes, actually gets to determine what is published on the thing he owns, especially if it is GOING TO BANKRUPT HIM TO LEAVE IT THERE BECAUSE YOU ARE A FUCKING YUTZ).