Less than a day after publishing a story that recounted an attempted tryst solicited by Condé Nast Chief Financial Officer David Geithner, the news organization announced Friday that it was removing the article.
The story was met with criticism almost immediately after it was published, with journalists from at least two organizations (including The Huffington Post and Poynter) saying that it unnecessarily aired Geithner’s private life.
In a post on his personal Kinja blog, Gawker Media founder Nick Denton called the decision to publish the post a “close call,” one that he now regrets:
We are proud of running stories that others shy away from, often to preserve relationships or access. But the line has moved. And Gawker has an influence and audience that demands greater editorial restraint.
Gawker is no longer the insolent blog that began in 2003. It does important and interesting journalism about politicians, celebrities and other major public figures. This story about the former Treasury Secretary’s brother does not rise to the level that our flagship site should be publishing.
Gawker Media is currently fighting an invasion-of-privacy battle with former professional wrestler Hulk Hogan stemming from Gawker’s decision to post an edited tape of Hogan having sex. Denton acknowledged in his post that he couldn’t defend the Geithner post as he has the company’s Hogan coverage:
I believe this public mood reflects a growing recognition that we all have secrets, and they are not all equally worthy of exposure. I can’t defend yesterday’s story as I can our coverage of Bill O’Reilly, Hillary Clinton or Hulk Hogan.
According to a post from Gawker’s J.K. Trotter, managers at Gawker Media voted 6-1 to remove the post. The lone dissenter was Gawker Media Executive Editor Tommy Craggs, who had a hand in editing the post.
Denton notes that this constitutes the first time Gawker Media has taken down a post without being prompted by a factual error or a legal settlement.
Denton’s decision to remove the post appears to be controversial within his own offices. On Twitter, Gawker Media Executive editor for investigations John Cook offered a dissenting view, saying that he and other employees there argued it was a mistake for Gawker Media to remove the post:
I and a lot of my colleagues argued as strenuously against it as we could, and we lost.
— John Cook (@johnjcook) July 17, 2015
Jordan’s post was solidly in line with what Gawker has asked its writers and editors to do for years.
— John Cook (@johnjcook) July 17, 2015
Correction: A previous version of this post omitted a word from Gawker Media founder Nick Denton’s blog post. This post also originally misstated the vote among Gawker Media’s managing partners to remove the post. It was 4-2, not 5-1.
