This was an anomaly, and we drew a line in the sand. Everyone here wants to do stories that they're proud of. HD: I think people probably missed how passionate people here are about journalism and getting stories out. MC: What do you think the media got wrong in its coverage of the whole affair? I'm not surprised they left, but they could have stayed and helped steer the editorial direction into this slight recalibration that we're doing. They didn't want to stay in an era 's hard to say. I think they resigned in support of a principle that posts shouldn't come down. HD: I understand that the people who resigned made the wrong editorial call. MC: Shortly after the post was pulled, Gawker Media's executive editor Tommy Craggs and editor-in-chief Max Read resigned. They're now working on a short statement to define exactly what kind of content we want to put up, and what kind of stuff makes us proud. HD: Our editorial group wouldn't agree to post it again. MC: If you had to do over, would you post it? I would leave it up as part of the editorial conversation so people who wanted to say, look this was the incorrect decision, could point to what they were talking about. HD: No, I wouldn't leave it up to generate interest or to draw eyeballs. MC: But your position came from a legal perspective? You thought, legally, it's fine? Or did you think, as president of the company, this is exactly the kind of thing that draws eyeballs, that makes Gawker Gawker. Even so, I thought, it's hard to un-ring a bell." "I think it's legally defensible, but the post made me uncomfortable. Even so, I thought, it's hard to un-ring a bell. I thought perhaps we write something and say, look, this editorial judgment was incorrect, it happens rarely but it happens, we're committed to doing stories that we\'re proud of, and leave it up. ![]() I think it's legally defensible, but the post made me uncomfortable. ![]() HD: I was, not because I was in favor of the editorial decision that put it up in the first place. MC: The post was eventually removed, but you were in favor of keeping it up, correct? HD: Yeah, I just can't talk about kind of legal ramifications that aren't public already. HD: Again, I don't want to talk about the kind of legal part of it. MC: I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not familiar with legalese, but if it's "privileged," is that to say there's been legal blowback? Is Geithner suing? I read it for legal review, but I approved it for publication. HD: I don't want to specifically talk about the process because it's privileged. MC: And did you have any tweaks, any comments on it?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |