I don’t think autocorrect is a recognized defense.

I think the Gronks were drinking beforehand or they memorized answers from last week in a poorly hatched scheme to win. Not sure though.

Basically the Blatter/Platini relationship

I haven’t seen a call blown so badly since a Gawker editor green-lit that Geithner hit piece.

You write this bile, yet you seem to forget how popular basketball and football are in this country, because we see some egregious diving in those sports as well.

We found El Chapo.

THERE you are! I was hoping you saw that, because you were a large part of that now-deleted thread, and I was suuuuuuuuuuuuuper-pissed on your (and others’) behalf.

So when will Gawker be hiring him?

Wow, so can we expect that any mention of the Gawker story will just continue to disappear from the comments???

If you were provided with the videos, would you post them in the interest of just “providing the truth”?

Or would you exercise editorial discretion in not posting information (digital media and knowledge of someone’s body is information) to protect the victims?

So, Natasha, if I can cut through the noise and ask a question: This was true. Were they right to publish?

Nope, sorry. After you defend Gawker Media’s outing of a random gay man, you don't get to claim the moral high ground anywhere, Natasha.

Can’t help but notice that ALL the comments about that shit-Gawker post were flat out DELETED over on the Unwed Mothers story a bit further down the page. I’M SURE IT WAS ONLY BECAUSE THEY WERE UNRELATED, YUP, THAT’S THE REASON.

Well....post the videos already. at least a link. come on, be a journalist with some ethics.

Yeah, this isn’t just GGers. It’s the whole goddam internet.

“outing a philaderer” is a hell of a euphemism for collaborating with a blackmailing grifter to destroy someone’s life for no reason but clicks. The obvious hypocrisy is that Gawker now feels an ethical obligation to protect the identities of the victims and not publish stolen nude videos, a policy it apparently…

Redacting names to protect people during potential investigations and legal litigation that there is no confirmation of here...

“...we are protecting their identities while they pursue legal action”

So you’ll protect and aide one criminal in blackmail, but not the peeper creeper?

Natasha, you just wrote that: “Stories don’t need an upside. Not everyone has to feel good about the truth. If it’s true, you publish.” However, this story involves a plea of “no contest,” thereby rendering these ALLEGATIONS unproven. Your headline implies that all of these accusations have been proven in a court of…