The website Gawker is reeling in the aftermath of particularly Gawkerish  (that is, slimy) story exposing the efforts of a high-ranking male official at Gawker rival Conde Nast to secure the services of a male prostitute.  Following backlash even from those who usually tolerate  Gawker’s smug invasions into celebrity privacy, Nick Denton, the president of  Gawker Media, had the story taken down. He then wrote a post titled “Taking a Post Down,” defending his executive action.  Gawker Editor-in-Chief Max Read and Gawker Media Executive Editor Tommy Craggs resigned, and the editorial staff has protested the episode, noting that “business executives deleted an editorial post over the objections of the entire executive editorial staff.”

First, regarding Gawker’s plight: good. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving website. Second, and more controversial is this interesting ethics question that we don’t encounter very often outside the realm of “The Godfather” films: Is integrity applied to an inherently unethical culture a virtue?

When the Conde Nast outing story received furious blowback from media critics but also gay activists, who are flying high right now and thus not to be crossed, Craggs proposed that Denton issue a statement that Gawker was founded as a media gossip site and had always “unapologetically and often mercilessly” invaded the private lives  those who work in  the industry. “We stand by the story, which meets our simple, unwavering standard of being both true and interesting,” the statement was to say.

That simple, unwavering standard is and has always been unethical. Gawker hurts people for fun and titillation, and makes a profit out of doing so. Printing what is “true and interesting” without considering whether the often prurient interest factor outweighs the harm to the individuals and their families done by the site’s prying is inherently unfair and irresponsible. The pulled story was not atypical, but then Gawker has been typically immune to shame and decency. What had changed?

Denton’s various explanatory statements are ethically inert—not surprising, since he founded this monstrosity.

“In light of Gawker’s past rhetoric about our fearlessness and independence, this can be seen as a capitulation. And perhaps, to some extent, it is,” he first wrote. “Perhaps?” It seems obvious that he pulled the article out of fear. According to the New York Times, he approved the article, so no ethics alarms went off, and why would they? Gawker has no ethics alarms.

Then he wrote, in a long note to Gawker’s editorial staff, “I was ashamed to have my name and Gawker’s associated with a story on the private life of a closeted gay man who some felt had done nothing to warrant the attention.”

Oh, bleccch. If he was so ashamed, why did he approve the article in the first place? Moreover, nothing justifies destroying a man’s life as he wants to live it by publicizing his private conduct, not unless he is a public figure and the conduct implicates his trustworthiness and ability to do his job. In this blather Denton is saluting the LBGT credo that only bad gays should be outed, bad meaning those who dare to stray from the approved Rainbow social and political positions on marriage, adoption, and other issues.  Elected officials whose private lives contradict their public statements arguably are fair game for such exposure, if the facts are ethically obtained, but not a business executive.

Then Denton admitted what was probably the only reason he acted.  “If the post had remained up, we probably would have triggered advertising losses this week into seven figures,” he said. That’s reason enough. Denton is the CEO, and it is his duty to protect the company from self-inflicted wounds. He did the right thing after doing the wrong thing, which was initially approving the item. He had, however, never done this before. No Gawker article had ever been taken down except to avoid a lawsuit or after the facts had been proven wrong.

Finally, Denton returned to the unfamiliar territory of ethics, saying, “Some humane guidelines are needed — in writing — on the calculus of cruelty and benefit in running a story. We do not seem to expose every personal secret — only those that reveal something interesting.”

Noted the New York Times,

“These sentiments stand in stark contrast with many things Mr. Denton has said in the past about Gawker. He has boasted in interviews about the “shamelessness” of certain Gawker articles, and has long characterized the site’s mission as one of “putting truths on the Internet” — whether or not these truths have any redeeming social value, and regardless of the damage they might cause.”

Hence the resignations and the editorial room anger. There is no question that Denton’s unilateral move (he had it voted on by the board as well) is a breach of the site’s “integrity.” But all the high-principled verbiage of the staff doesn’t get around the fact that integrity in this case meant continuing to engage in unethical, irresponsible, gratuitously cruel journalism. In that ethics conflict, integrity loses, and should.

Denton is no hero here. He shifted the site’s values and policies without warning, as he acknowledged by writing to the staff,

“To any that resign over the deep-sixing of the … story, and to any that find a gentler editorial mission too limiting: I respect the strength of your convictions…This is a decision you’re taking to preserve principles you believed I still shared. And since you were abiding by a policy that we had not formally superseded, we will treat all resignations as being constructive dismissal, subject to severance.”

Aww, that’s nice. The problem is that a sensitive, fair, caring and responsible Gawker is no longer Gawker at all. The most ethical thing for the staff to do is leave on the basis of integrity to save face for not leaving long before on the basis of sleaziness.

Maybe now they can write stories for a site that doesn’t make its profits by hurting people.

__________________________

Facts: New York Times, Washington Post

Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts, and seek written permission when appropriate. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work or property was used in any way without proper attribution, credit or permission, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.