![]() ![]() THR: Do you think you walk a more dangerous ground when you pay for information?Ĭook: I mean, honestly, we don’t generally pay for information. This is the primary dynamic within Gawker, but I hope the presumption is that we should get stuff out. Not everyone here agrees we should do this story. Am I like spending all day trying to find his ex-assistants and pay them money to say something? No.ĭenton: It drives me crazy that there is something that is widely known that I hear about from friends - basically, friends who have set him up with guys. If we had photos and if we had an account of an assistant, we would do it. If it presents itself, we will do it that way. It’s just a question of do I want to wake up in the morning and be like, “Hey, how can I do a - item today?” No. Ĭook: I think it’s a matter of what the opportunity is. … It still drives me crazy that we haven’t broken about about -– being gay. THR: Have there been instances where you’ve drawn the line, where you’ve seen a story that’s about to come out and you say you can’t go there?ĭenton: Not that I want to remember. Yes, in part that’s been driven by the outing of celebrities like Anderson Cooper, something I’m proud to say we played a part in, but more of it is just in the self-outing of people’s friends through party photographs, through the random indiscretion on Facebook that makes it actually increasingly difficult for people to maintain secrets. Take attitudes towards gay sex and gay relationships. Because so many of those photographs have been published (in social media), it’s been normalized in a way. An employer would be a complete fool to let an image like college partying influence their hiring decisions. #Gawker denton professional#… Ten years ago, people maintained very different private and professional personas. We evaluate and report.ĭenton: Just once in a while, I think it’s worthwhile to take stock and recognize that the supposed invasion of privacy has incredibly positive effects on society. Our standards for getting it right are different from larger, more established institutions, and we do not just throw out every tip that we get on the site. That is still important to me and to everyone we work with. #Gawker denton free#THR: What have you learned along the way?ĭenton: We’ve removed a lot of obstacles to free journalism and yet -Ĭook: There is still the desire to be right. We’re just going to share with you as we would share with our colleagues what we have. But actually, now I think the larger factor is a journalist’s desire for respectability - not wanting to expose themselves, not wanting to say, “Hey we’ve heard this, we’re not completely sure whether it’s true.” People are talking about this. THR: Do you think journalists censor themselves?ĭenton: Well, I used to think it had to do with legal reasons and people being too fearful of libel. The basic concept was two journalists in a bar telling each other a story that’s much more interesting than whatever hits the papers the next day. ![]() THR: When you started Gawker, did you have an idea that you were going to change things?ĭenton: Yeah. Also joining the conversation was Gawker editor John Cook. We recently spoke to Denton about a decade worth of living on the edge online. But overall, Denton is unrepentant and argues an unconventional point of view on privacy that surely will keep the Hollywood legal community busy in the years to come. See what he has to say about a Lena Dunham book proposal below. Denton occasionally will admit to having made a judgment error. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |