lol

Fair enough, bad example.

It’s actually pretty weird. He’s eminently reasonable and demonstrates good judgment elsewhere in these comments. But anything to do with the lawyer in the room he’s completely off the reservation.

Yep. You get it. You put it better than I could have.

Where have you found public shaming? I think this post goes a LONG way towards getting the facts straight, for the writers and for the rest of us. Gawker Media has always conducted that kind of business in public.

We agree on this. We disagree (elsewhere) about Jay’s persona here, but in all other matters that I’ve seen you post on, I think you’re spot on.

Oh, I stand corrected. ‘Dripping with disdain’ is lost in transcription. If you’re seeing that in his words here, it’s your imagination. He’s doing his job. You’d hire him if you were a UV exec reading this with your fingers crossed.

Agree to disagree, I guess. To me they’re coming off as scared writers who want some clarification as to how the terms of their employment have changed. I don’t understand how you can reconcile ‘they’ve been told over and over again’ with the fact that six posts were just abruptly deleted without warning.

Totally agree. Time will tell, as Lee said; deeds not words. But the approach certainly does strike me as reasonable right now.

I responded a sub-comment you made on this, then I scrolled down and realized you were serious.

He’s a lawyer, that’s his job. In this specific case, that was literally his entire purpose in being present for the interview.

Great point. I think a lot can be read between the lines to answer your question though of course it’s open to interpretation. But I think implicit in Univision’s (justified) denials to answer questions to do with privileged discussions about the acquisition is the idea that a certain subset of posts were tagged as…

I agree both that that was a major takeaway from this interview and that that seems to be Lee’s position, at least. And that it’s a pretty reasonable stance. We’ll see - again, as Lee says, this will take time - whether they mean it or not.

This interview made that abundantly clear. It’s not clear whether Trotter fully understood that prior to the interview. It is clear that many of his colleagues, who submitted the questions he was asking in this interview, did not understand it. Many of Trotter’s follow-up questions to those submitted by his colleagues…

I’m not sure you read the whole interview. There are very real implications in the events of these past weeks and months, and in the discussion posted above, to how these writers continue to conduct themselves going forward. If you wrote some code that made you personally the target of potential litigation, you’d want…

Last time something a post got taken down from a Gawker Media property for business reasons against the wishes of editorial, Craggs and Read both quit. Can this generation of editorial leadership be far behind?

The tweet he’s responding to, from ESPN Stats & Info, says

Big-time pushoff by the receiver, obvious at 1:06 in the video.

Holy shit, I can’t believe it.

Did nobody read Cirone’s account? These players got railroaded en masse into signing documents proving their culpability, and those documents were then used as evidence by NCAA. What we need to know is who got those fellas into a room and made them sign those initial statements.