In fairness to Page, appearing in that movie may not have been her choice. She may have signed a multi-movie contract.

I like the feigned disbelief of the Jezebel writers at her reaction. Jezebel, whose founding entity Gawker has already been sued out of existence for libel and slander and if it wasn’t the Theil/Hogan tag team match they lost, it just as well would have been that blackmail blog post about the male prostitute that…

He screwed up which of the usual two major papers broke the story. How can you criticize that after this much bigger correction?

About the “our communications confirmed the rumors,” thing, thanks for picking that up. I hoped I’d read it wrong. I really hoped (and still do) that the writers, obviously working through justifiable frustration and under time pressure to put up their version of the story, simply worded it wrong. I hope they didn’t…

I get that you had good intentions. I don’t want to discourage you from covering this type of story.

Valid arguments can be made that there’s a difference between reporting on the story and reporting that you are reporting on the story. The Times, without a public plea for someone to substantiate a rumor, did background and got people on the record. They didn’t simply write about “rumors” without proof.

It’s no wonder the accusers who don’t feel safe coming forward against CK went with the NYT. The Gawker/Gizmodo brand’s reputation as “news” is totally damaged goods. It’s inferred in the article above...

Yeah, WHAAATTT? is that?? Isn’t that literally the opposite of journalistic integrity? The New York Times, from which Jezebel recycles a good percentage of its posts, wouldn’t be caught dead including a line like that in any article, anywhere, at any time.

I have defended Gawker (and related sub-blogs) for years! Holy hell is that clip difficult to watch/listen to. As you say, I like Jezebel, but I was so disappointed in how they handled this CK story from the jump, and now they are trying to do a victory lap because they published the vaguest of rumors without having…

Let’s not forget this!

She’s mad because Jezebel didn’t listen when she said, “No.” Shouldn’t be hard to understand.

I mean if you’re going to link anything, you should be linking to this:

This. THIS.

For me, the issue was always with how Gawker/Jezebel handled the Kirkman story rather than the need to believe that Louis was innocent. I don’t know if it was intentional or not, but I’ve read several articles on these sites where that Kirkman comment was contributed to being about Louis even after she denied that who…

I guess I don’t get how you can play the “we’re doing real journalism” card when the NY Times busted the story wide-open with 5 sources in what, a few weeks since the Weinstein stuff broke? And you’ve supposedly had it for years?

I don’t think I’m going to be crying over Kirkman’s treatment of Jezabel, sorry. Sounds like ya’ll sicced the flying monkeys on her and then said “well we didn’t tell them to bite you!” when she got mad. The fact that she screwed up the exact particulars of which monkey bit who, when, while recounting it in a heated…

“Our readers don’t have to and shouldn’t take our word on something just because we publish it”

Yeah, but that’s not how journalism ethics works. The story had credibility but the reporting.... didn’t. No real sources, no real facts to report. I get that was incredibly frustrating for Jezebel (and the other ex-gawker sites), but that doesn’t give them a license to just keep stirring the pot publicly on the hopes…

I respect the effort that you put into this and am really impressed with you sticking to this. I often, publicly and online, noted that I was reserving judgment because I didn’t get it. I was wrong. Thank you.

Here’s the simple fact: The Washington Post did journalism the right way, and Jezebel did not.