they say in thier byline that they do gossip and they often describe themselves as a tabloid but that is absolutely no excuse and its infuriating when they fall back on “We’re a gossip site” when they act unethically because you can easily be a tabloid and follow journalistic ethics.

Yeah... I’ve never really been out of the grays, so I’m “risking” nothing. But I will say that I had an exchange with a jez writer recently that left me feeling very soured on pretty much all of gawker media. I’ve been reading & commenting way less since. I don’t expect perfection, but I do expect better than…

This is not my field, so I can’t comment with any specificity. But people who apply epidemiological models to social studies issues have found that publicizing suicides and homicides leads to a statistically significant increase in copycats. Given that there is no real public interest in publishing the names of…

If we all get banned it’s probably for the best, because we shouldn’t be supporting a media company that blackmails people anyway. But, if that happens, I’ll miss you guys!

Ugh. I feel like we’re about to see some really unlikely bedfellows soon... and if we stand by our ethics and call out this homophobia for what it is, we’ll be graying it up in gray hell for the rest of Kinja.

You’re right. @natashavc is defending this bullshit on twitter.

THIS. I love y’all in the comments (especially when you point out that I commented on a piece before having my coffee), but sometimes—okay, often—the pieces on which we comment are not up to par. It gets nasty, and disingenuous, and I hate it.

It freaked me out. The only good news is the comments are about 98% negative. And hard negative.

The Jezzies are an awesome bunch. But the Jezzie bloggers are about to bend over backwards to defend this homophobic hit piece, just to keep the Conde Nast crew at bay.

See: Hulk Hogan

I wish Jezebel would call them out on that shit, makes them seem like hypocrites when they criticize other sites for doing the same sort of shit their own sibling site does.

Or they could at least come out and say they’re forbidden from leveling the same criticisms at Gawker.

Like, what did I just read? That is not only shitty, lowdown, and homophobic, Gawker just outed this guy using a dickface asshole who was trying to blackmail him. THIS IS NOT OKAY.

Right? Let it be a reminder that Gawker et al are not always the high-minded intellectual bastion they purport to be. They will attack media opponents using any means necessary, and will hold whatever centrist, popular opinion that people will click on.

Jesus what the absolute fuck

Speaking of LGBTQ tolerance:

I’d have more sympathy for someone with mental illness who didn’t lie in wait in a dark movie theatre and plan an escape route.

I agree with you, but that’s not actually what they said or what I was responding to. But yes, I totally agree with you. It’s one of the MANY reasons I am against the death penalty.

But what they said was that “the death penalty is for non-whites” and that’s obviously not true at all, since plenty of white people get…

I appreciate the article but I honestly just want to chime in that I find it inappropraite to shoehorn in a line on an unrelated matter at the bottom of the article. While I agree with the blacklivesmatter movement and have issues with the police treatment of them that issue has nothing to do with this case at hand.

She’s absolutely serious. A number of people who study mass murders say that the more infamy is generated, the more the act appeals to other sociopaths, whereas anonymity, being the opposite of what these people want, minimizes the risk of copycats.

Really upsetting that you guy’s aren’t practicing responsible journalism by publishing this murderer’s name. You can factually report without using his name. #nonotoriety

I am relieved that he was found guilty, but I am, as always, completely against the death penalty.