Gawker Editors Resign Over Removal Of Story That Outed Corporate Exec

Mediaite reports:

Gawker Media editor-in-chief Max Read and executive editor Tommy Craggs resigned Monday in protest of the managing partners’ decision to remove a piece accusing former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s brother David of soliciting a male prostitute. “On Friday, I told my fellow managing partners… I would have to resign if they voted to remove a story I’d edited and approved,” Craggs told Gawker staff in an internal memo. The managing partners did indeed put it to a vote, deciding 4-2 to remove the post. “This was not an easy decision,” Read continued. “I hope the partnership group recognizes the degree to which it has betrayed the trust of editorial, and takes steps to materially reinforce its independence.” The editors’ decision comes after Gawker’s staffers issued a statement on Friday slamming the “business side” for deleting a post over the objections of the entire editorial staff.

Gawker founder Nick Denton has published a lengthy reaction. It begins:

The Managing Partnership as a whole is responsible for the Company’s management and direction, but they do not and should not make editorial decisions. Let me be clear. This was a decision I made as Founder and Publisher — and guardian of the company mission — and the majority supported me in that decision. This is the company I built. I was ashamed to have my name and Gawker’s associated with a story on the private life of a closeted gay man who some felt had done nothing to warrant the attention. We believe we were within our legal right to publish, but it defied the 2015 editorial mandate to do stories that inspire pride, and made impossible the jobs of those most committed to defending such journalism. I’m sorry also that Jordan Sargent, reporting this story impeccably despite a personal drama, was exposed to such traumatizing hatred online, just for doing his job. And I’m sorry that other editors and writers are now in such an impossible position: objecting to the removal of a story that many of them found objectionable.

  • TommyTune

    That was the right thing to do. It was tabloid “journalism,” and unless you’re a news organization that wants to be called a tabloid, it was the wrong call to publish that article in the first place. However, I still think David Geithner was being incredibly foolish to fool around on his wife, whether with a man or a woman. Eventually he would have been found out by someone else. With famous people it’s inevitable, and blackmail is usually involved. Like I said before, “If you don’t want anyone to know about it, don’t do it.” (I read that in a fortune cookie.)

    • another_steve

      I agree 100 percent, Tommy.

      I hold a simple position: If you do no harm and say no harm in public about the LGBT community, your personal life is entirely your own business.

      If (to use an extreme illustration) you’re an Orthodox Hasidic rabbi who’s “foolin’ around with the boys on the side” AND you do no harm and say no harm in public about the LGBT community, it’s entirely your business.

      I have no desire to out you.

      And no one with any brains or conscience should either, imo.

      • GarySFBCN

        Orthodox Judaism on homosexuality: “Die rather than transgress”, which is a mandate to out anyone affiliated with/supporting that cult.

        • Bonobo

          Orthodox anything is a cult.

      • JustSayin’

        Steve here is where I disagree with you. A rabbi or minister is a central figure in their community of believers. If that community respects you for being truthful and a moral leader, then you behaving as described harms them, lies to them, and is ultimately detrimental to the entire community.

        I also think your decision to use the word boys Instead of men or males displays a callous, if unconscious, disregard for the child molestation perpetrated by so many members of the clergy.

        I am not a religious person, FSM PRESERVE ME, but those that are have a right to expect their religious leaders to obey the teachings and covenants of their chosen faith. Dismissing them, their feelings, and their rights is arrogant and obnoxious to say the least.

        • another_steve

          “…but those that are have a right to expect their religious leaders to obey the teachings and covenants of their chosen faith.”

          If I’m following your logic, JS, then there’s no hope for the eventual evolution of any branch of any institutional religion(?)

          If a priest rebels against the “official teachings” of his church and refuses to read an anti-gay “Bishop’s letter” during mass, that priest should not be a priest?

          What am I missing here?

          • SFHarry

            Maybe the orthodox rabbi should then become a reformed rabbi. In the town I grew up in the reformed temple served shrimp at the bar/bat mitzvahs!

          • another_steve

            Lol. You made me laugh, Harry. Thank you.

            To make another human being laugh is a mitzvah in and of itself. 😉

          • Bonobo

            “there’s no hope for the eventual evolution of any branch of any institutional religion” …true so far.

    • wineflask

      You don’t know what his wife knew. Maybe she was okay with it? Many longterm couples are monogamish (to use Dan savage’s beautiful word). Still, one thing they both certainly had no reason to expect was the story getting public this way. The only criticism I have is his choice of sex worker, who in hindsight raised all sorts of red flags. But then, hindsight is always 10/10.

      • TommyTune

        Well, if Geithner was out about his sexuality to everyone, including his wife and kids, and had an open relationship with her that everyone knew about, then I can’t see how much traction or damage would have been caused by the article, which is not to condone the sleaziness of it all.

    • People4Humanity

      “… in bed.”

  • Grant

    You will note that nowhere in there is a “we’re sorry” to the man whose life they fucked up.

    • HZ81

      Seriously, and does anyone know for sure if any of it is true? The hustler turned out to be gay-for-pay porn “Star” Brodie SInclair whose twitter feed is full of crazy.

    • StraightGrandmother

      Grant, he will no doubt do this privately in order to not further exploit the victim.

      • Todd20036

        Could be, but at this point, an apology just won’t cut it.

    • AmericanPaPISSED

      Didn’t the man in question “fuck up” his own life by hiring a male prostitute to have sex with?

      • Grant

        Would you like your biggest mistakes broadcast all over the internet?

        • AmericanPaPISSED

          You seem to be asking that a “news” publication (I use that term loosely since it’s Gawker that we are talking about) hide the TRUTH because it embarrasses the person that made the stupid choice.

          • Grant

            I’m pretty sure I’m saying that just because a website has information doesn’t mean they need to spread it around.

          • AmericanPaPISSED

            NEWSFLASH: If you don’t want your gay hooker to go the press, don’t text him a face pic from your cellphone. What the hell do you think Google Voice is for?

          • Cousin Bleh

            Right, so don’t wear short skirts if you don’t want to get raped. That’s what burkas are for.

            And certainly don’t drink in a bar if you don’t want someone to slip you something and steal your wallet. That’s what drinking at home is for.

            Thanks for playing “Blame the Victim.” You’re today’s winner!

          • larry

            Thank you!!

          • Cousin Bleh

            Truth and news are not the same thing.

            This story, regardless whether it was true or not, had no news value.

          • AmericanPaPISSED

            Neither does anything the Kardashians do. Yet I see “news” stories about them all over the internet.

          • Cousin Bleh

            The Kardashians chose to be public figures. And considering they’re a multi-million brand, they are indeed newsworthy to some.

      • Cousin Bleh

        Plenty of people fuck up their own lives.

        And yet, it’s still none of your goddam business.

      • clarknt67

        There was zero public interest in the story. Outlets are not obligated to run every piece of gossip that comes into their inbox.

        • Pugsandcoffee

          And they’ve gone out of their way to protect the identity of the prostitute. The actual potential criminal in this kerfuffle, who is actually attempting to blackmail the rich dude.
          Ugh. Only gawker could make me feel sorry for a millionaire.

    • Al Kaseltzer

      “Fucked Up” for reporting he’s gay? The brother of a Treasury Secretary? Gee, thanks. I guess all of us who post here have “fucked up” lives because, what? We’re not liars? By the way, what makes this joker any different than, say, Roger Clinton or Billy and Ruth Carter who were relentlessly bullied by the press?

      • Cousin Bleh

        For starters, he’s not related to a sitting president.

        I mean, are you trying to appear stupid or does it come naturally?

    • Platos_Redhaired_Stepchild

      That’s because they aren’t sorry. From their POV he fucked up his own life and they just reported it.

  • Blobby

    resigned? they should have been fired!

    Outing someone is a questionable ethic at best. Doing it while protecting a hustler (in every sense of the word) for a vendetta is reprehensible.

    It would ALMOST be one thing if the alleged john didn’t pay the guy, but he still got fucking paid for services NOT rendered. The hustler was just being a dick – and Gawker are just pawns in that guy’s fucking game. The writer should be fired too, btw.

    • Doug105

      Maybe the national enquirer has some openings.

      • David Walker

        Weekly World News! Bat Boy needs someone to clean up after him.

        • Robincho

          Has Hilary snagged him for VP yet, like she did before? Or maybe BB’s gonna go with Trump this time around…

      • Blobby

        Enquirer has better standards than Nick Denton & Co.

    • ultrahighvacuum

      I disagree with the second part of your comment. The guy appears to be…unwell to put it mildly. It looks more like Gawker took advantage of a paranoid dude with severe mental issues to further tbeir agenda against Conde Nast.

      • Blobby

        it looks like the hustler contacted Gawker. They should have turned him down flat, but they didn’t.

  • ECarpenter

    It was a very bad editorial decision, and pulling it was justified to protect the company. Aiding a blackmailer? Gratuitously trashing the life of a man who has done nothing wrong? Editors who decided those were justifiable should lose their jobs, it’s good they resigned.

    • StraightGrandmother

      I like to think they fell on their swords.

      • bambinoitaliano

        I think they were offered to go out with pride behind the scene. This way they get to protect their reputation for their screw up. Gawker is amputating itself to prevent further damage for possible lawsuit that could done the site in.

  • MDB

    In this era of Facebook, instant gratification, selfies and sensationalism, journalistic integrity has lost much of its integrity.

  • I don’t know that it merits all the verbiage, but I welcome the decision. I’m suprised that the original writer hasn’t had the grace to resign, and I hope a new editor’s first move will be to end his employment.

    • Lumpy Gaga

      I don’t know that it merits all the verbiage

      Rilly.

      Ironically, if anyone was ever truly in need of an editor…Denton’s kingdom for a red pencil?

  • J̶a̶l̶a̶p̶e̶ñJoe Smithson

    The story was salacious and certainly dramatic, but the guy was a private citizen, not a duplicitous politico or some other public figure that warranted the exposure. I’m still amazed that someone would pay $2500.00 for a hookup, FedEx the money and make 5 star hotel reservations without a second thought.

    • MDB

      Somewhere in all of this mess, there are a few individuals who need to learn the meanings of
      discretion, integrity and personal responsibility.

      • bambinoitaliano

        It’s never good if you are on the down low and hook up with porn actors cum hustlers. They are not the most upstanding citizens one usually find in that industry.

    • fiizok

      I want to be amazed, but I’ve long since grown accustomed to the fact that the vastly wealthy top 0.1% lead very, very different lives than the rest of us.

      • J̶a̶l̶a̶p̶e̶ñJoe Smithson

        I’m just pissed that I’ve been giving it away free all these years. At those prices, I could be retired on a beach in the Caribbean.

    • RobNYNY1957

      How do you know he didn’t have a second thought?

      • Even with a second thought, it was still a ridiculous and stupid idea.

  • Jamie_Johnson

    I’ll say it again: what Gawker did to David Geithner was unforgivable. The ENTIRE staff of Gawker should be fired and exiled to journalism’s hell for siding with a gay-for-pay hooker with, shall we say, a questionable history. I’m not trying to defend Geithner here, aside from respecting his privacy. What I am suggesting is that Jordan Sargent specifically and Gawker’s editorial staff in general, deserve every ounce of scorn and ridicule for enabling the hooker’s extortion.

    • justmeeeee

      They weren’t siding with a hooker–they weren’t even making a statement about the content, but about the process of the suits overruling the editors. But lynch mobs don’t tend to understand these sorts of distinctions, so carry on!

      • Joey

        By publishing it, and voting to not pull it, they made a statement about the content.

        • justmeeeee

          Conclusion-jumper!

          • Dazzer

            Read Denton’s statement in full. He emphatically and directly comments on the witlessness of the original article.

      • uestg

        Upper management has the right to make decisions as they please. That is how it works at all companies. Can’t imagine how it would be if someone quit every time a VP changed course from what that particular lower level employee wanted to do. People “suck it up” and move on every day in corporate America. Unless you own the company you don’t get to be the king or queen.

        • justmeeeee

          You need a little ejukashun in how journalism works..

          • Dazzer

            I don’t know it works elsewhere, but in the print industry publishers will regularly drag editors over the coals if something gets printed inimical to the publisher/owner’s best interests.

      • chasmader

        Sounded to me like they were conspiring with the whore by paying him for his story and withholding his name.

      • clarknt67

        “They weren’t siding with a hooker” actually they totally did. Whatever you think of the decision to run it, Gawker gave the hooker the luxury of anonymity to wield his accusations against a person they named.

        There is no other way to interpret it except preferential treatment to the hooker, Derek Truitt, that he should be shielded from any public scrutiny while throwing Geithner to the wolves..

        • justmeeeee

          I’m talking about the real journalists who didn’t like the bidness guys making editorial decisions, not the decision to print it in the first place. Subtleties, I know…they’re hard!

  • Frank Dash

    I have not visited Gawker in some time, and I feel better for it. They often cross into the inhumane territory that frankly terrifies me.

  • LonelyLiberal

    Flagged. Also, the dollar per hour figure is going down, you should probably optimize your business paradigm or some crap like that.

    • Paula

      They do their banking in Greece. Things are kind of hinky, right now.

      • LonelyLiberal

        80 drachma an hour would barely be worth getting out of bed for!

  • Daniel

    “I hope the partnership group recognizes the degree to which it has betrayed the trust of editorial, and takes steps to materially reinforce its independence.”

    d’Awwww, that’s kyoot how they pretend they’re journalists working for a legitimate news outfit!

    • StraightGrandmother

      you know what, when the Editors FOUND a business then they to can manage that business. Nick denton is the Founder and Published no matter what he will always have the last word to think otherwise is foolish.

    • MrRobotoLA

      Yeah, I loved how one of their letters actually called Gawker “my site.” There’s your trouble right there, employee. It isn’t your site, and never was.

    • clarknt67

      Let’s hope the editorial staff reflects on the degree to which they have betrayed the basic principles of common sense, decency and journalistic ethics. But I’m guessing not.

  • MDB

    Bugger-off, learn how to spell correctly and shovel
    your spam somewhere else.
    ❆ FLAGGED❆ !!!

  • Webslinger

    It is important not to decide what was known by the spouse and what was not known….I can see the conversation being slanted towards this being about sex positive and this and that…HOWEVER…this is more about ethics in journalism…

    • Dazzer

      Agreed, it’s about professional ethics – but it’s also about having a moral compass.
      Some editors and some writers seem to lack both.

  • Hue-Man

    “…Gawker’s staffers issued a statement on Friday slamming the “business side” for deleting a post over the objections of the entire editorial staff.”

    ENTIRE editorial staff believes it’s OK to out closeted gays. I sure hope none of them and their approving “staffers” have any skeletons in any of their closets because they’ve now declared open season on reporting ALL infidelity, whether famous, near-famous, or the rest of us. Sad.

  • JustSayin’

    In the rest of that statement Denton says

    but it defied the 2015 editorial mandate to do stories that inspire pride, and made impossible the jobs of those most committed to defending such journalism.

    Then

    The company promotes truth and understanding through the pursuit of the real story

    Then

    . We do not seek to expose every personal secret — only those that reveal something interesting .

    Gawker is a tabloid rag on the level of a supermarket piece of trash. The linked statement goes on about how dangerous this is to them in light of the upcoming Hogan trial, which I don’t know anything about but indicates they are being sued yet again and they fear a big loss.

    As for geihtner, my empathy for him is limited. As an editor at Conde Nast he knows how easy things are to search for on the internet yet arrogant enough to think it would not happen to him. As the brother of an uber-famous political figure he has been warned, counselled and told to be careful of what he says and does on line because it might come back and bite him.

    He was an arrogant fool in how he dealt with an online prostitute. His personal life is his own, but to expect a hooker and porn star to operate at some high level of social consciousness is childishly ridiculous.

    Everyone just think before you post anything on line. It may end your marriage, career, social standing and everything you own. Worst of all it can end your ability to breathe as we have all seen in so many murders associated with online postings.

    • Tom

      Geithner is CFO at Conde Nast, not an editor (not that he wouldn’t know how easy things are to search for on the internet — you don’t have to be an editor to know that, do you?). How do you know he was “arrogant enough to think it would not happen to him”?

      That hooker is all kinds of batshit right wing gay-for-pay crazy, and for all we know Geithner did not do or say what the hooker claims. And posting online is not the same as private messaging either, and it was the hooker and Gawker who posted what were private messages, if that is even what they were.

      Let’s stick to the facts here: Gawker delights in putting trash out and smearing people, and has repeatedly shown it doesn’t give a crap about who suffers — look at the tweet from their former reporter admitting he completely made up not-so-blind items about James Franco being a gay rapist — here’s the tweet: http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2015-07-17-1437119852-2700328-gawker.jpg

      Now that it is themselves who are in peril, Denton is trying to clean things up, but he is reaping the whirlwind he and his company spun up.

  • Cousin Bleh

    When I first saw this headline, I thought they were being let go for publishing an utterly fucked up story with zero news value that may have ruined a man’s life.

    But no, they’re just garden variety sanctimonious assholes. I have no idea how someone can afford to live in New York City on their principles.

  • Toasterlad

    So, instead of thinking: “Hmm…maybe outing innocent people isn’t actually responsible, morally defensible behavior”, this asshole is pretending to be a journalist and quitting because he imagines some sort of sacred trust has been violated?

    You worked for GAWKER, asshat. GAWKER. You worked for the online TMZ. You get to have neither dignity nor ethics.

    • clarknt67

      Right, you’re not publishing the Pentagon Papers, or an expose that the NSA is spying on all Americans. You’re the muscle behind a hooker’s blackmail scheme.

  • Blake Jordan

    These “gay-for-payers” are such “damaged goods” it seems…

  • I’m glad they quit. Their pissy little revenge piece blew up in their face. Quitting is the only acceptable option; the defiant denial not withstanding. Now they can hire someone with at least a hint of morals.

  • robirob

    It almost feels like Gawker is doing their idea of an re-enactment of what happened with Reddit the last few couple of weeks.

    Media has become so very strange lately. Gawker vs. Reddit and the coverage of Donald Trump’s bid for POTUS. They self destruct right in front of your eyes.

  • StraightGrandmother

    “I was ashamed to have my name and Gawker’s associated with a story on the private life of a closeted gay man who some felt had done nothing to warrant the attention.”

    FINALLY!!!
    I will bet that Nick Denton will reach out to the victim, he probably just won’t make that public in order to end further exploitation of the victim. He wouldn’t be doing all this and fail to reach out and apologize to the victim, I don’t think.

  • Lumpy Gaga

    Dear Messrs. Denton and Trump:

    Go 69 each other. It guarantees we won’t hear anything from either of you for at least a few minutes.

  • AtticusP

    So much drama; so little time.

  • MrRobotoLA

    The overly-wordy, crybaby whinging of Craggs and Read in their farewells is what gets me. Those idiots really need to take a remedial class on what EDITING actually means.

    Beyond the damage done to the exec they smeared, what really galls me is that they’ve not only made me dislike many writers who’ve supported them over the weekend, but their actions actually made the lunatics over at Breitbart and #GamerGate actually look sensible.

  • Elaygee

    I could care less about Gawker and its policies and employees. The guy who was outed lost all right to privacy when he tried to hire a hooker/gay porn star. I will safely conclude he didn’t try to hire him to wash clothes or clean his gutters.

    • Lumpy Gaga

      Some people think that the money gets them discretion. Nothing more, nothing less.

      And sometimes people are dead wrong.

    • Yalma Cuder-Zicci

      “The guy who was outed lost all right to privacy when he tried to hire a hooker/gay porn star.”

      Why? Why should you have a right to know about this man’s private dealings? It’s non of your, or anyone else’s business.

    • clarknt67

      That isn’t a legal standard for what amounts to expectation of privacy, thankfully.

  • Lumpy Gaga

    OMG. I just realized JMG prefaced Denton’s remarks with “It begins:”

    Begins? Don’t tell me there’s more…

    • Dazzer

      Gawker hasn’t updated since 12.11pm EST.
      Oh yes, there’s one hell of a lot going on at Gawker Towers today.

  • MickinDetroit

    Call me cynical, but if this were Donald Trump’s brother…. would there be all this handwringing over protecting the private lives of closeted gay civilians?

    • Yalma Cuder-Zicci

      If it had been the brother of Donald Trump, a person running for president and who seems to make news hourly, the conversation would be about Donald Trump and his anti-gay stances, and the time he referred to Rosie O’Donnell as a degenerate.

      Such is not the case with the Geithner brothers.

      • MickinDetroit

        but that would still be making a civilian a-political brother a “victim” of an outing.

        • Yalma Cuder-Zicci

          What?

          • MickinDetroit

            The outrage here seems to be about how this guy was apolitical, private citizen and was outed because of his famous brother. my point was if this wasn’t a brother of a “friend” we wouldn’t be handwringing over his outing. I think that’s rather hypocritical.

          • Yalma Cuder-Zicci

            Oh. Who knows? You can’t call something hypocritical that hasn’t happened. I think people would still feel badly about the outing of a private citizen, but turn their attentions more to the anti-gay, famous brother. That type of situation would have layers to it this does not have.

          • MickinDetroit

            Dont you think a CFO of a rather important media conglomerate so ashamed of his orientation he has to construct an elaborate double life at least a bit newsworthy?

          • Yalma Cuder-Zicci

            Really? I think it’s tawdry and no one else’s business.

          • metrored

            No, it’s not. It’s just gossip, incredibly personal gossip

          • metrored

            Is tim Geithner a friend? If there is a difference between Tim Geithner and Donald Trump it would be the Donald Trump is an actually celebrity. Trump actively courts pubic attention and has done so for decades. Tim Geithner was known for being Treasury Secretary during the financial crisis but he left government, and the public eye, in 2013. Unless performed during his tenure, Geithner’s private actions haven’t reflected on the integrity of our elected officials for two years. Also, unless he has a TV show I haven’t heard of, he hasn’t maintained a public persona since he left government. And now we’re talking about whether the private life of his brother is of interest to the public, or at least fair game for the press.

  • bitwise

    Muckrakers feign professional indignation and quit in last ditch effort to appear to be real journalists.

  • DevilsAdvocate

    I’m not so sure this is an ‘outing’ in the traditional sense of the word. Let’s suppose, for instance that Mr. Geithner was arranging to buy $2500 worth of marijuana. He’s chosen to participate in an illegal activity. If the person he was intending to purchase from decides he’s going to tell his boss about the transaction, (the blackmailing part of my hypothesis) this stll would be a ‘newsworthy’ story, no? However, if Mr. Geithner decided to go on a date with another man, no laws had been broken…no news made.

  • Al Kaseltzer

    I’m just not into this! If he were hiring straight rent-girls, would have been as big an issue … or an issue at all? Folks, we have to take the good with the bad. We want to be equal? Then we get equal treatment. It’s the “gay” in the story that is “dirty” and THAT’S what I resent! Out the fucker. Being gay is NOTHING to be ashamed of. If not for homophobia, our own internalized homophobia, or the homophobia of others, there would be no “out” or “closet.” Sunlight is a great disinfectant.

    • danolgb

      So out the accuser as well.

  • bambinoitaliano

    This is not just simply outing of someone. It’s the writer of Gawker Jordan Sargent possibly act as an accomplice to a blackmailing scheme set up by Derek Truitt/Brody Sinclair. David Geithner is in the position to file a lawsuit against Gawker for entrapment and blackmailing. The question is if he is willing to drag his personal life out in the public. As the owner of Gawker, Nick Denton has a right to protect his company from any possible litigation under the advisement of his legal department. Obviously Max Reed and Tommy Craggs lack the judgement for allowing that piece to be published in the first place, if they do not have the integrity or ethical judgement, they should not be given the responsibilities on that site. Taking the criminal element out of this issue, most media have an unwritten rule regarding outing someone. Aside the pink satan Perez Hilton, one does not out an individuals unless these people are politically working against the gay community. If Gawker allow to exercise such expose, it’s open season for all noted celebrities across every industry in the US.

  • clarknt67

    Employees who helped a hooker blackmail some poor smoe have too much integrity to keep working at Gawker. OK.

  • Pugsandcoffee

    Bye bye now.

  • BockMcMillan

    B’bye, Max & Tommy! I am happy you resigned, even if it was not for having the poor judgement to post that sordid story.

    Too bad that you guys didn’t have the grace to say “we’re sorry” to the man who’s life you assisted a blackmailer to destroy!

  • MikeinATL

    I have no problem (and even encourage) outing those who are secretly gay while working against LGBT rights. However, I don’t think this fell into that category and it was a porn actor trying to extort the individual. Inexcusable IMHO.

  • RLK2

    The story again make it seem that being gay is something “shameful” or “fucked up.” That is why I have little empathy for these closet types.

  • e jerry powell

    Okay. The first issue is that Gawker maintains that what they published was true. Pulling a story that is factual is problematic. Adding an editor’s correction would have been a better course of action (if the article is erroneous).

    Second, their primary source — for the record, “Brodie Sinclair,” aka Leif Derek Truitt — is questionable at best; if the source was unreliable (which appeared not to be the case up to the point of publication).

    In related news:

    In any case, the most interesting detail in the story—by far—is that the escort … first contacted the office of Sen. Ted Cruz for assistance with his housing dispute. [The escort]] was evicted from his luxury apartment in 2013; he told Gawker his career as a gay porn star was to blame, though legal documents suggest his landlord objected to [the escort’s] dog.

    I understand and support the principles that the editors are standing on, but at the same time, I think there may well be factual problems with the story they ultimately ran. A gay-for-pay sex worker/conspiracy theorist with a chip on his shoulder as a primary source screams out for extensive corroboration from additional sources, and given the current climate of gay-for-pay shakedowns (e.g. “Jarec Wentworh,” even though his victim is a closeted — no more — gay Republican), I have to take quite a bit of pause, thinking that Gawker may well have unintentionally abetted a shakedown.

  • leastyebejudged

    This is what most “journalist” believe is their job.

    So. Just remember that. They feel they have the right to use their power and authority to invade your privacy and ruin your life. Because it’s their job.