Gawker gamergate update#
Gawker gamergate full#

Gawker gamergate update#

Had Patel simply said “sure, we’ll update the piece,” then this piece and others like it wouldn’t exist. The Verge should still probably write a second piece explaining why they are standing behind this figure, since the difference is so massive and their obstinance made it a bigger story than it should be. And yes, I did just subtweet Nilay Patel. OK, back to our regularly scheduled programming, with the ending tweaked to reflect this update because Paste put the word “editor” in front of my name, and attempting to accurately depict reality is basically my job description. (Some former Gawker executives dispute this figure, and place the loss at just over $1 thank you- John Cook February 8, 2017 As I was going over my final edits, The Verge finally updated their piece, including this simple line after their $7 million figure:

Shane Ryan, Paste's politics editor, pointed this drama out to me for our media section this morning, and I spent most of it raging into my keyboard about how stupid and obstinate this decision was by Patel. This battle spilled over into the morning, as Cook followed up with morning everyone just checking in on this. To top it off, The Verge's version of events empowers one of the dumbest and most hostile movements in recent memory. There are 2,964 words in this piece, and 21 of them (0.7%) are being questioned in public. So, to recap: an Editor-in-Chief (whose Twitter handle is was refusing to even publish the fact that two named Gawker sources are going on the record to dispute his unnamed source's figure of Gawker's Gamergate-related losses by eighty fucking six percent… and it's not even the focus of the article.

And I'm confident in them, so here we are.- nilay patel February 8, 2017 Patel's insistence to not even include a reference to the dispute was rooted in an amorphous cocoon of “confidence” in their We talked about it, they're confident in the number they published. The people who experienced it firsthand deny it, seems like it's worth an update especially when you're giving gg-ers a false sense of power /LCrAi2Agvg- Ashley Feinberg February 7, 2017 Sam Biddle-formerly of Gawker, now of The Intercept-perfectly summarized how antithetical this decision was to standing by a single anonymous 'Gawker source' vs 2 named Gawker sources is uhhhhh- Sam Biddle February 7, 2017Īshley Feinberg-also part of the Gawker family-highlighted the greater evil that this decision enables. Agree that everything about it sucked.- nilay patel February 7, 2017 Patel came back from a meeting, and despite saying that he was “happy to correct” earlier, he basically told them to go pound I discussed with and we're standing by it. More importantly: who cares- Joel and 9 Others February 7, 2017 Direct ad pulls and interrupted deals were about a million. Then Joel Johnson, former editorial director at Gawker Media, joined in on the I was there. GG started in august and didn't become a thing until october- John Cook February 7, you're basically saying it cost us half or more of Q4 revenue- John Cook February 7, 2017 Patel engaged him, and we were off to the I trust in and reporting, happy to correct if you have different info to share- nilay patel February 7, i have different info to share: internal estimate as i recall was ~$1 million- John Cook February 7, our '14 revenue was $45 million.

Gawker gamergate full#

John Cook, former executive editor of Gawker Media, literally called bullshit on the you are full of shit, my man- John Cook February 7, 2017 qjPGq5L1Te- nilay patel February 7, 2017 Little scooplet in our Buzzfeed piece: Gamergate cost Gawker $7m in lost ad revenue. It’s an interesting window into Buzzfeed’s mindset, and mostly an uncontroversial article, save for one unrelated item buried over 1,600 words into the piece. Yesterday, The Verge posted an interview with Jonah Peretti-CEO of Buzzfeed-and its Editor-in-Chief Ben Smith, that was largely about their decision to publish the infamous “Golden Showers” Trump dossier.