Like many, I’m disgusted by Gawker’s outing a married mid-level executive who attempted to hire a gay escort (and who is a relative of a very prominent former official), when there is no reason to do so. The argument Gawker has been making is that any well-off person is worthy of criticism and exposure (though they also seem to have a gay exposure fetish). But something John Cole wrote about this whole ugly mess puts it into context (boldface mine):
The sociopaths [at Gawker] still don’t understand that they should have been fired and that a company will only afford you editorial judgment when you show some. To recap, the post they are demanding stay up so they retain their editorial freedom was leaked text messages detailing an attempted tryst between a gay escort and a married accountant at Conde Nast. The escort leaked them because the accountant refused to use his personal influence and connections with powerful men to help him settle a score regarding his luxury apartment. The editors in question thought this was relevant and newsworthy- the rest of the world did not.
Shorter- they willingly outed a married man by taking part in a blackmail plot because a.) they could, b.) it would get clicks, c.) He works for a competitor. That’s the fucking hill these sociopaths are willing to die on.
If there’s any shocking behavior here, it’s that someone in a position of relative advantage decided to take his lumps rather than misuse his personal influence and position.
That is shocking.