![]() ![]() If this article went live without that backlash (and got the page views), I’m afraid this type of journalism would be justified - because page views = ad dollars. Today the managing partnership of Gawker Media voted, 4-2. I’m happy that there was a backlash from Gawker readers. Gawker is a technology media company, in a fierce battle with companies such as CNET and AOLs Weblogs Inc unit Jezebel will be more easily monetized by Conde Nast, which has a portfolio of. Yesterday, Gawker published a post about the CFO of Cond Nast attempting to pay a gay porn star for a night in a Chicago hotel. This was low even considering Gawker’s reputation (and sites like Perez Hilton, TMZ, etc.) full of gay shaming and supporting future scumbags that want to blackmail their johns. Gawker’s readers were similarly confused and pissed off: Luckily, I wasn’t the only one completely turned off by this. He walks away with his hands clean? This is Gawker’s courtroom and jury. Not to mention the scumbag escort that tried to use the executive for ulterior motives - as if $2,500, a free hotel and airfare wasn’t enough. The Post reports this morning that 'Conde Nast and EIC Joanne Lipman have maintained strict radio silence on what the editorial thrust of Portfolio might be.' Maybe the tab was tuned to the. How was this newsworthy? Why did Gawker out the executive while keeping the identity of the blackmailing escort with ulterior motives secret? It’s not like the executive had a history of being anti-gay or homophobic, and you know, they actually never ended up meeting one another, so the whole “ fucking around on their wives” thing never actually happened. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |