|
If it's on deadspin and it's not by Greg Howard, it's not worth reading.
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 03:04 |
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:If it's on deadspin and it's not by Greg Howard, it's not worth reading.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Those are both strong truths. I don't mind Tommy Burke but he mostly writes straightforward stuff anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
I've still got a soft spot for Big Daddy Balls
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
I'm irrationally excited for "Why your team sucks" because people here get so mad about the Steelers one every year
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Frackie Robinson posted:I've still got a soft spot for Big Daddy Balls Coincidentally, thanks to Buzz I know for a fact that old people do not look good with nipple piercings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Not that they haven't turned out worthwhile stuff over the years, but Deadspin really benefited from being close to first in their field. It's weird to think about how crude the internet was even 10 years ago
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Ribsauce posted:Deadspin used to be pretty awesome but it is the Hater Olympics over there now and has been becoming more and more so since Leach left. I'm sure there is still good stuff over there, but every time I go there now, I see like 2 "Hot deals on laptops" posts, one about beer, one about food, 2 screencaps of something, and maybe 1 sports article. The food and beer stuff is pretty good though! They are a lot less mean spirited recently. Daulerio and Craggs moving up helped in that regard a lot, I think. MourningView fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Yeah I like Burneko's food posts
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Yeah I like Burneko's food posts As do I. Those food articles make me laugh harder than anything else on Deadspin, with the possible exception of the fan submissions into Why Your Team Sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
To update, Tommy Craggs and Max Read, executive editor and EIC respectively have resigned from Gawker.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Such a strange story to die on
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Ungratek posted:Such a strange story to die on I get wanting editorial autonomy and being upset when someone swoops in and messes with the site against the objections of the editorial staff, but yeah they really should not have allowed it to be published in the first place and it'd be kinda nice if they recognized that somehow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Kalli posted:To update, Tommy Craggs and Max Read, executive editor and EIC respectively have resigned from Gawker. Is this over Conde Nast, The Hulkster, or both
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
DOOP posted:Is this over Conde Nast, The Hulkster, or both It's over the management of Gawker taking down the Condé Nast/Geithner post.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
MourningView posted:I get wanting editorial autonomy and being upset when someone swoops in and messes with the site against the objections of the editorial staff, but yeah they really should not have allowed it to be published in the first place and it'd be kinda nice if they recognized that somehow. Yeah that's the real problem. I get wanting autonomy, but this shouldn't have gotten through in the first place
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
I demand the editorial autonomy to poo poo the bed however and whenever I want, and then to roll around in it indefinitely rather than have someone else clean it up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Edit: Denton on the decision to pull the article
morestuff fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
quote: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.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
I'm sorry that everyone is mad at my friend, the guy who ruined a stranger's life, because he was already having a pretty tough week
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
vainman posted:I'm sorry that everyone is mad at my friend, the guy who ruined a stranger's life, because he was already having a pretty tough week I think that's more of a failure on the editor's part.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Whats wrong with reporting on public/business figures doing crimes.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
I'm not sure if that was sarcastic but the issue is that publicly outing people's sexuality is generally pretty despicable. We all laugh when it happens to a politician calling gays an abomination but any other scenario is usually bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Whys it bad to say he was attempting to pay for sex (crime) because it was gay sex.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Keven. Just. Keven posted:Whys it bad to say he was attempting to pay for sex (crime) because it was gay sex. Is it newsworthy? Does it benefit the general public at all? Is he even a public figure?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 20:13
|
|
Tater Love 
|
He isn't a public figure in any sense that matters, and he didn't even end up paying the escort. So the story basically amounted to "Hey, the former treasury secretary's brother almost bought a gay prostitute!
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Keven. Just. Keven posted:Whys it bad to say he was attempting to pay for sex (crime) because it was gay sex. If he wasn't gay it wouldn't have been a story, that's the part that makes it objectionable and not really news.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
I think media executive attempts to pay for straight sex and prostitute tries to black mail him is a story as well.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
No one had any idea who that guy was before the story came out. Not every crime needs to be turned into a big news story. The newsworthiness of it didn't justify the damage to his life.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Blast Fantasto posted:He isn't a public figure in any sense that matters, and he didn't even end up paying the escort. So the story basically amounted to "Hey, the former treasury secretary's brother almost bought a gay prostitute! This is assuming the story is 100% true, which it probably isn't, seeing as how the source is really weird. Also, this isn't exactly Deep Throat reporting. The guy contacted Gawker, they copy-pasted everything he sent them, and added a perfunctory denial from Geithner at the bottom. AND they let him be anonymous for some reason I cannot fathom at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
The first "Why Your Team Sucks" is here!
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Ungratek posted:Yeah that's the real problem. I get wanting autonomy, but this shouldn't have gotten through in the first place Crazy Ted fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Also this is literally a thing published on a Gawker website in regard to the Grantland Dr. V Putter fiasco:quote:Issue two is the reporting on the trans status of the subject. This is much clearer: Don't out someone who doesn't want to be out. The end. Everyone has a right to privacy when it comes to their gender identity or sexual orientation Crazy Ted posted:Well if you'll believe Craggs' letter on Gakwer today, he personally edited and OK'd the Geithner story. Yeah him stepping down seems a lot less noble when you consider that there's a pretty good argument that he should have been fired for approving the story in the first place. To the best of my knowledge he hasn't tried to apologize for the story at all or justify it's existence, he's trying to turn it into a thing about editorial autonomy instead. MourningView fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Hahaha good lord Craggs decided to immolate everything and publish Gawker's brand-new "Brand Book" that they were using to sell themselves to potential advertisers. He is going this far because his boss wouldn't let him keep up a story about the outing of the private-citizen brother of a public figure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
You know things are hosed up when motherfucking Nick Denton looks like the voice of reason:quote:To All of Edit at Gawker Media: There's a whole bunch more words but I'm not c/p'ing all that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
It's actually about ethics in tabloid journalism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Denton essentially promising a kinder, gentler Gawker is weird to see but makes a lot of sense considering where they're at right now
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
I think the thing that is striking a chord so much for a lot of people is the hypocrisy at hand as mourningview and others are pointing out. And its also gross how they're hiding behind this journalistic ethics thing when the story is pretty loving repugnant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:13
|
|
Copernic posted:This is assuming the story is 100% true, which it probably isn't, seeing as how the source is really weird. I mean I get why its a Bad Story (though basically on the level of everything gawker does) I just don't agree that there's some special protection he should get because it was a gay man.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 03:04 |
|
|
Nick Denton posted: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. I'm terribly sorry that Jordan Sargent was traumatized by the online vitriol (that we encourage vigorously in so many other cases) he received for outing a closeted gay man and perhaps destroying his family life for no real reason at all, especially since Jordan was having kind of a rough week already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:19
|
|