Some of our own writers, proud to work at one of the only independent media companies, are equally appalled," he wrote. And then the weird, "I would love to institutionalize and automate some right of response." I think I’ve already said everything I need to say about The Post Itself in the email I sent around on Saturday. The boss is supposed to not let something be published that he can't stand by. It was an editorial call, a close call around which there were more internal disagreements than usual. It concerns a senior business executive at one of the most powerful media companies on the planet. “We put truths on the internet.” That has been the longstanding position of Gawker journalists, some of the most uncompromising and uncompromised on the internet. These texts were interesting, but not enough, in my view. We do not seek to expose every personal secret — only those that reveal something interesting. However, Denton said "the media environment has changed, our readers have changed, and I have changed."
– On Thursday, a storm erupted with Gawker's publication of a story by Jordan Sargent about the CFO of a media company who allegedly planned to step out on his wife to meet a gay escort in Chicago. As Dylan Byers pointed out at Politico, "widespread condemnation" ensued, and that's possibly putting it mildly. Here are the six things you should read if you want to know what's going on: On Friday, CEO Nick Denton said the post was coming down: While "the account was true and well-reported ... Gawker is no longer the insolent blog that began in 2003. The point of this story was not in my view sufficient to offset the embarrassment to the subject and his family. Accordingly, I have had the post taken down." There was a vote: Gawker explains the nuts and bolts of the meeting in which it was decided the post would come down. "The partners who voted to remove the post were Andrew Gorenstein, who serves as the president of advertising and partnerships; chief operating officer Scott Kidder; chief strategy officer Erin Pettigrew"; and Denton. The editorial staff issues a statement: They refer to "today's unprecedented breach of the firewall, in which business executives deleted an editorial post over the objections of the entire executive editorial staff. ... We condemn the takedown in the strongest possible terms." Michael Wolff weighs in on what Denton is thinking: As the lead-in to his Hollywood Reporter piece puts it, "Weeks before the gossip outlet took down a reprehensible article amid outcry, Denton seemed to suggest to Wolff via an email apologizing for a personal attack that there is a lack of responsibility for the consequences of the site's content in the new age of after-the-fact mea culpas." Gawker's editors resign today: Gawker Media Executive Editor Tommy Craggs and Gawker.com EIC Max Read announced they're leaving over the decision. From Craggs: "All I got at the end of the day [Friday] was a workshopped email from Denton, asking me to stay on and help him unf--- the very thing he'd colluded with the partners to f--- up." Denton shares this letter with all of edit: "Were there business concerns? Absolutely. ... It was such a breach of everything Gawker stands for, actually having a post disappeared from the internet. But it was also an unprecedented misuse of the independence given to editorial. ... This is a one-time intervention, I trust."