WHOA! It’s always nice to start off the week with a bombshell announcement, and we’re doing it once again today. Tommy Craggs and Max Read, the two editorial leaders of Gawker Media, have resigned today as a result of last week’s disgusting report, and the subsequent decision to pull that story. I’m sure Nick Denton wishes them both well in their future endeavors. Here’s the announcement itself

Tommy Craggs, the executive editor of Gawker Media, and Max Read, the editor-in-chief of Gawker.com, are resigning from the company. In letters sent today, Craggs and Read informed staff members that the managing partnership’s vote to remove a controversial post about the CFO of Condé Nast—a unprecedented act endorsed by zero editorial employees—represented an indefensible breach of the notoriously strong firewall between Gawker’s business interests and the independence of its editorial staff. Under those conditions, Craggs and Read wrote, they could not possibly guarantee Gawker’s editorial integrity.

Here is Cragg’s memo to the editorial staff of Gawker Media:

I want to give you some sense of what happened within Gawker Media on Friday, and what has happened since, as a means of explaining why I have to resign as executive editor.

On Friday, I told my fellow managing partners—Nick Denton, founder and CEO; Heather Dietrick, president; Andrew Gorenstein, president of advertising and partnerships; Scott Kidder, chief operating officer; and Erin Pettigrew, chief strategy officer—I would have to resign if they voted to remove a story I’d edited and approved. The article, about the Condé Nast CFO’s futile effort to secure a remote assignation with a pricey escort, had become radioactive. Advertisers such as Discover and BFGoodrich were either putting holds on their campaigns or pulling out entirely.

Looks like Denton couldn’t afford to lose more sponsors. Here’s Max Read, then I’ll keep updating this column as more comes in:

On Friday a post was deleted from Gawker over the strenuous objections of Tommy and myself, as well as the entire staff of executive editors. That this post was deleted at all is an absolute surrender of Gawker’s claim to “radical transparency”; that non-editorial business executives were given a vote in the decision to remove it is an unacceptable and unprecedented breach of the editorial firewall, and turns Gawker’s claim to be the world’s largest independent media company into, essentially, a joke.

I am able to do this job to the extent that I can believe that the people in charge are able, when faced with difficult decisions, to back up their stated commitments to transparency, fearlessness, and editorial independence. In the wake of Friday’s decision and Tommy’s resignation I can no longer sustain that belief. I find myself forced to resign, effective immediately.

It’s hilarious that they chose this hill to die on, but I love it…

More from Twitter:





From Politico:

Shortly after news of Craggs’ and Read’s resignations broke, Denton posted a lengthy statement (Google Doc) in which he took full responsibility for the decision to remove the post and “step in to save Gawker from itself.”

“It was such a breach of everything Gawker stands for actually having a post disappeared form the internet. But it was also an unprecedented misuse of independence given to editorial,” Denton wrote, adding that he was “ashamed” to have his and Gawker’s name associated with the outing of a closeted gay man.

Denton also noted there were business concerns around publishing such articles, but that they were not the ultimate reason to pull the post, saying he was thinking “in the broadest terms about the future of the company.” He included a note from a “friend of the site” who said Gawker’s brand is “confusing and damaging” because it is too “snarky”, “risky” and “bitchy without a reason.”

Denton said the story was “legal” (as in it would stand up in court) but that it would have lasting damage to Gawker’s reputation and could not be justified personally or to “journalists and opinion-makers.”

Gawker’s editorial ethos “needs a calibration more than a radical shift,” Denton wrote, but that doesn’t’ mean they need an “explicit editorial policy.” Ultimately, he said, he hopes Gawker finds a place between “a stolid Vox Media and a more anarchic Ratter; closer to the edge, but not over it.”  

More from Twitter:


  1. “… and turns Gawker’s claim to be the world’s largest independent media company into, essentially, a joke.”

    Sorry, but Gawker is already a joke.

    1. I thought jokes were supposed to be funny?
      Gawker is more like a crying clown trying to tell The Aristocrats.

  2. “…turns Gawker’s claim to be the world’s largest independent media company into, essentially, a joke.”
    Oh yes. Because people hold Gawker in such high regard…..

    1. My favorite part of this is that it’s clear that nearly every big name at Gawker actually believes/believed the company stands/stood for something and none of them agree in even the most general sense as to what that something is/was.

  3. I knew this was coming for Craggs, since Gawker’s post about the take down of the offending article all but screamed, “BLAME TOMMY CRAGGS! IT’S ALL HIS FAULT!”

    As for Read, he’s always been a whiny little bitch who throws a fit when people disagree with him or he doesn’t get his way. Ironic how a Gawkerite is suddenly throwing a fit when offensive speech is being taken down, huh? WHO’S THE WHINY PISSBABY NOW, MAX?

    No surprise here, Denton is trying spin himself as the hero here, acting like to fought SO HARD to get this pulled against Read and Crag’s wishes. Motherfucker, you’re the head bitch in charge. You’re the one that OK’d this shit in the first place, and now you’re trying to act like you saved the day? Even worse, Denton only pulled the article because it was “hurting the brand”, not because it was, you know, UNETHICAL or anything important like that. I’d tell Denton to go eat a bad of dicks, but since i’m sure he’d actually enjoy it, I’ll just tell him to go eat a bucket of vaginas instead.

      1. As far as I know, Jordan Sargent has been laying his head low. It worked for Grayson when his failure to disclose his work on Quinn’s game and their relationship came to light, so I’m guessing that we won’t hear from Jordan again until the heat dies down.

  4. Gawker was already a Joke…

    first of all the story in question should never have been printed (it took what a few hours of research to find out that it not true? or what it even less than hour?)

    with the choice to pull the story down they did the only think any news station with any dignity would do, and Cragg thinks Gawker is a joke for doing that…

    I don’t even… the incompetence is vast with this one… (I’m a baker by trade and I know more about ethics that this guy…)

  5. “Andrew Gorenstein wondered openly in a partnership meeting why Sam Biddle hadn’t been fired” Praise the SUN!!!

  6. ” Gawker’s claim to “radical transparency””

    I love how even he put that in quotes for us. kek

      1. Weirdest part is that Gawker staff is so fucked up i believed this account was real for a minute

  7. Too funny. This is pretty huge, because they quit on the principle that they sucked at their jobs and management couldn’t let it stand.

  8. Is it my imagination or are the two editors that resigned insinuating that they are the victims in this situation???

    1. These pieces of shit, like any SJW and SJW-ally really, are perpetual victims in their own imagination. It’s a mentality permeated by a victim complex, victim-fetichism and victim fantasies.

      And no, it doesn’t matter that they’re white, college-educated and pull in high five figures. They’ll find a way to blame “sexism” “whiteness” or “capitalism” regardless, when they suffer any misfortune, no matter how self inflicted it is.

      Max and Tommy are crying bitter tears into an overpriced, shitty microbrewery beer at some trendy (But not too trendy!) bar in Manhattan as we speak. In between sips of beer and wiping each other’s tears, they clench their fist and bitterly blame their firing on “rich C-level republicans” and how “the one percent always sticks up for each other, against working class heroes like us”.

      1. There should be an op on the situation making sure that everybody knows if they’re the motherfuckers who made that article publishable in the first damn place. I say prevent the motherfuckers from ever getting another job like this ever the fuck again. They think the article was radioactive? I say we make them I say we make them radioactive.

  9. I still want the head of the little piece of shit who wrote the story before I can relax from writing advertisers, and enjoy a post-schadenfreude-orgasmic cigarette…

    Jordan Sargent I believe it was? He’s one of the worst offenders on Gawker. He’s your typical upper middleclass SJW. Whiny, vengeful little fucker. Not much of a writer either.

  10. It is a good thing to do when said gay men are closeted and work against their own kind. is outing Ted Hagard wrong? Travolta and Cruise? Michelle Bachman’s husband?

    I don’t know whether the Conde Nast person was one of these, but sometimes outing people is a very very right thing to do.

    1. How are Cruise or Travolta closeted “gay men…work[ing] against their own kind”?!? Doesn’t freedom include the freedom to be private about whom you’re rubbing your junk against.

      >“I don’t know whether the Conde Nast person was one of these”

      He was a private person, working as CFO at Conde Nast, with a wife and three kids. Even Gawker’s libelous smear piece didn’t claim he was some sort of hypocrite that judgmental jerks like you feel are worthy of destruction. He was just a guy whose target value was that he worked for a competing media outfit, albeit in no way connected to things they’d be competitive about.

      Gawker basically went after the top accountant of their “enemy” because gay-shaming is what bullies do and his tax-dodging brother was Obama’s first Treasury Secretary. (Check your cash. Series 2009 notes have Tim Geitner’s signature on them.) You clearly support outing and gay-shaming, though you try to wrap it in some noble “death to hypocrites” rationale.

      How would you like it if Gawker went after some peccadillo you’ve been involved in, hmmm? Have you ever cheated on your significant other or been someplace doing something you hadn’t ought have? Who cares if you’re nobody, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, BAYBEEE!!! It’s a very, very right thing to do.

      1. He lied to his wife, and again, your right to privacy goes if you use that right to hurt people doing exactly what you are doing. If you how’s about sexual deviancy, and then get found dead in a wetsuit with a hole for your dick with a dildo up your ass, yes, that’s everyone’s business. As I said, sometimes, it is right to out people.

        Cruise and Travolta both belong to the criminal organization Scientology, who have actively run ex-gay programs for decades (allegedly what got Travolta there in the first place), and were active in things like Prop8. Scientology’s active anti-gay agenda is well documented.

        I support “death to hypocrites ” no matter who they are. Hypocrisy should be severely punished. I’m a real liberal eith balls. I hate Anita because she is a liar, a thief, and a hypocrite.

        And no, I would never, and have never cheated on a significant other, and if I did, I would deserve what I got for doing so. If this man did nothing to deserve it, yes it was wrong but as far as I’m concerned, cheating on your spouse is good enough reason to out your ass and use it in the divorce. Betraying people isn’t a virtue, and you made a (secularly) sacred promise when you put on that ring. If you can’t keep it,, then be honest about it. If not, you deserve what you get.

        1. Right to privacy is granted in most countries’ laws. Tle limit to it is when it goes beyond your privacy (like publicity, crimes, blackmail, bribes, etc.)

          What he done wasn’t unfair business practice or criminal in any sphere, so whatever happened, it was a private matter, and whatever happened after, should be solved on the right grounds (I.E. Only publicized if it eneded in criminal practices or interfering in unethical ways with someone’s job).

          If you want to go in an outing crusade, embrace gawker’s sinking ship and go with them

          1. Wow, great argument, I’m going to guess a lot of states still have anti sodomy laws on the books, so I guess you’re a ok with hanging gays too?

          2. Sodomy laws were rightfully overturned by Lawrenče v. Texas. Even where they still are on the books, they are unenforceable.

            Adultery is completely different matter. This is about betrayal. You made a claim without looking. This person is an officer in a,publicly traded company behaving unethically. I realize that in the corporate world such things are rewarded with large bonuses, instead of punished severely as they should be

            Why wasn’t it wrong to out Zoe Quinn and Burgers and Fries? After all,that was private too, in exactly the same ways.

            Deal with it, he’s a scumbag. He betrayed his wife, and got what he deserved. Gawker engaged in tabloid journalism, and unfortunately messed with the boss’s buddies, or his buddy’s buddies and they got burned. Now is the time to seize on that hypocrisy to do further damage to them to help get Anita and the SJWs finally noticed for the wire fraud, theft by deception, and many other crimes they’ve committed for which Gawker is likely criminally complicit.

          3. Zq case was Analogue to influence trafficking, and involved the trust of thousands of reader of the site.

            And the way it was outed WAS WRONG! it could’ve been handled different ways with way less private life exposure and keeping only what really mattered on the spotlight.

          4. The fact the story is false is bad enough. That you’d think this is ok is sick. But it still doesn’t take away for the fact your arguments are shit. Guess what retard? Adultery laws are unenforceable too. I’m not going to argue with someone who’s head is so far up their ass, but Zoe Quinn is a repulsive enough person without dragging her sex life into anything. What she did to tfyc was what got me interested in gamergate, That she was outed by the person she hurt though is a different dynamic, and the influence peddling as mentioned below is what was wrong, I couldn’t care less about the fucking.

        2. Well, aren’t you a self-righteous scold, so filled with rage that you can’t even stop pounding your tiny fists on the keyboard long enough to see whether what you’re typing makes any coherent sense.

          What was it Jesus said about those without sin? I’m sure you’ve NEVER cheated on a significant other and NEVER committed any crime and NEVER drove more than one mile-per-hour over the speed limit no matter how many cars on the freeway were riding your tail and honking and NEVER took a penny without leaving a penny. Jesus, is that you? Oh, that’s right, Jesus was never such an arrogant bag of dicks and he was the freaking SON OF GOD. Tool.

          Now on to one of the few things that didn’t resemble an epileptic cat walking across the keyboard….

          >“yes it was wrong but as far as I’m concerned, cheating on your spouse is good enough reason to out your ass and use it in the divorce.

          That you can’t comprehend the difference between a wife finding out her husband is unfaithful and a media outlet exposing that family’s dirty laundry for millions to enjoy it frightening. What business is it of the general public’s what is happening with a private citizen’s marriage?!?

          If this story was even true – which it really appears it wasn’t, so you may be cheering the public humiliation of an innocent man (what will you say if he kills himself?) – what is the news interest to anyone outside of his family? Does his prominent position on Conde Nast’s org chart make him fair game? What if he wasn’t the CFO but just some accountant doing payroll in HR?

          If he was Joe Schmoe who handles ad placements for CN magazines signed up at Ashley Madison because he was bored and curious about what the site was, but never went beyond flirting emails with some woman, would he be fair game for crucifixion on Gawker’s front page? According to your loud sneering, yes he would, because bad people deserve public shaming.

          Man, you must’ve jerked your nub to a bloody pulp during the season finale of Game of Thrones this year. You’re gonna cosplay that nun, ringing the bell and bellowing, “SHAME!” over and over, aren’t you?

          You’d better be living cleaner than a virgin’s panties in your personal affairs because nothing would be more deliciously karmic than you being hoist upon your own petard.

          1. Jesus never said anything. He’s a fictional character used by criminals to steal from the gullible, and infect children with mental illness. Perhaps you should be madder about that.

            Perhaps if bad people were publicly shamed more, we’d be in a better world. Perhaps if we restore things like the stocks,and public floggings, we’d be in a better world.

            This man is a major player in a publicly traded company, which receives a large amount of benefit from the public dollar, including the ability to continue to destroy the world economy with the gambling casino known as the stock market. It IS EVERYONE’S business what kind of people are running it.

            Gawker doesn’t have to be good for this guy to be bad. And he stopped being good the second he cheated on his wife. It’s very easy to say “I lied to myself, and to you about who I am, I need to be who and what I am, so I can’t stay married to you in good faith”. And once that ring is off, then you can bang whatever consenting adult you wish.

            Betraying people who have done nothing wrong to you is never ok, and the idea that outing people is never OK is ludicrous. As was stated, and you were too busy condemning without think, and without actually reading what I write

          2. Oh, you’re one of those self-righteous atheist fucktards then. Got it. You’re still the worst sort of moral scold, dare I say, the kind who has loads of sins he’s consumed with guilt about and thus channels his self-loathing for his weakness upon others. Now it all makes sense.

            >“This man is a major player in a publicly traded company, which receives a large amount of benefit from the public dollar, including the ability to continue to destroy the world economy with the gambling casino known as the stock market. It IS EVERYONE’S business what kind of people are running it.”

            That’s some 151-proof #FullMcIntosh bullshit there, Bub. How in unholy fuck does a media conglomerate “benefit from the public dollar” and destroy the world economy and all the rest of your insane ravings?!? You seem to have confused the government with a company and the shrieking voices in your head with reality. Wow. I’m not sure what combination of drugs you’re on, but I’m going to go with all of the drugs.

            If this guy was embezzling from the company, then that’s the business of the shareholders and newsworthy. Heck, if he was paying for his hookers on his corporate tab, then Gawker would’ve had a legitimate news hook, albeit a tawdry and salacious one.

            But that’s not what happened. Even if Gawker’s story was 1000% accurate and true, it was about a guy making arrangements to cheat on his spouse and then NOT DO IT! This whole story is about a guy who DIDN’T CHEAT ON HIS WIFE. You are making an unmitigated ass of yourself over something that he didn’t even do.

            Now we’ve established that you’re probably dirtier than a three-way between Anthony Wiener, Elliot Spitzer and Amy Schumer which is why you’re so hysterical about crucifying all adulterers, but let’s pretend you’re the pristine virgin you claim to be. Have you never had a thought about doing something wrong? Never ever? You never thought about just taking an extra penny from the dish by the register because you might need it? I’m not talking about you strangling someone with your panty hose – nothing so bold. Just gave a thought about doing something slightly less than wholly moral.

            Q: If you didn’t follow through with those thoughts, should you be made an example of in a big Internet story?

            I mean, if we’re gonna burn the CFO of Conde Nast for NOT CHEATING ON HIS WIFE, but just allegedly tried to set up a tryst, then by all rights YOU should be put in your stocks and shamed even if you didn’t actually sin outside your mind.

            Bub, you’re the hypocrite here. It’s amusing to see you barking your atheism when everything else about you screams a moral blue-noseism that would make Rick Santorum look like Larry Flynt.

          3. Produce you God, prove its divinity to the satisfaction of the worldwide scientific community and peer reviewed, contemporary accounts of Jesus Christ. Until such time as you accomplish this, believers in God are mentally Sid, and enablers of criminal activity. Why does being Catholic for examp,e allow you to finance their child rape Underground Railroad penalty free, or is that private too.

            If you’re so Ill-educated you don’t understand how corporate law, their historyand the impact they have works, I’m not going to waste my time typing it out for you to ignore and dismiss.

            Answer my question that is actually relevant. Why is outing Zoe Quin ok?

          4. You don’t get to ask questions when you’re clearly insane. Every single thing I’ve put to you has been met with screams of atheism unrelated to anything and rabid moonbattery that is cray cray even by Bernie Sanders fanboy standards. Fuck off, nutbar.

            BTW, you must’ve missed that Zoe Quinn’s antics being exposed by her jilted lover – that beta bitch boy – was universally condemned by Gawker/Kotaku/Polygon/etc. as being private behavior that was no one’s business. You are so fucking insane that you can’t even recognize that you are howling for an executive’s NOT CHEATING to be just cause for a lynching while simultaneously braying that it was wrong to out Zoe Quinn. Dude, that’s apples and tire irons.

            Buh-bye. Your guilt and shame for your crimes will consume you soon enough without my pointing it out.

        3. > He lied to his wife, and again, your right to privacy goes if you use that right to hurt people doing exactly what you are doing.

          (Says you. Really, you have no clue what he has or has not lied about.)

  11. christ…. too much of a fucking scumbag to work at Gawker because they are not scummy enough….. how good does that look on your CV?

  12. Fuck Max Read with a rusty spike. So glad he’s gone. May he remain unemployable.

    These are people who deserve to have their careers ruined.

  13. I talked to Read via email around the time of the ‘bully’ comments and he was a total dick. Amusing he is taking a stand over a reviled article.

  14. Sounds like the rats are already trying to get off the Titanic because that bitch is about to hit an iceberg. And that iceberg’s name is Hulk Mother Fucking Hogan!

  15. This completely made my day. I hope these two have to settle for jobs working as jizz moppers in a gay strip club in NYC.

  16. And they went out ripping a new one into the site.

    It’s never enough just to do it, they have to do stuff with all the possible drama

  17. Being immoral and making REAL people’s lives a living hell is all bells and whistles and must be allowed because of freedom os expression

    But GOD FORBID a female video game character has curves or make some witty jokes. Screw freedom of expression

    Weird logic

  18. I hereby declare the day Gawker falls to be VG Day..Victory Over Gawker Day. On that day we will erect a statue of Hogan legslamming Denton.

    1. You notice that too?

      Giving a 50% tip on a company credit card (just as you’re resigning) is an obvious “Fuck You” to Gawker.

      As you already mentioned, it’s at least good for the waiter/waitress.

  19. God damn, Gawker is taking a beating from every angle right now. I guess they’re learning what the people they write about feel. Karma is a bitch and I’m thoroughly enjoying watching Gawkers destruction.

    As for Read and Craggs, good luck finding a better job elsewhere, assholes!

    1. Gawker is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to journalism. So when that goes expect none of these dipshits to have a job.

      1. That’s exactly what I’m hoping for, that’s what I meant by the “good luck, assholes!” comment. Because no way in hell would any respectable (AHAHAHAHAHA) journalist hire a couple of useless fucks whose only claim to fame is having been a shitty Gawker writer.

        1. When you are pissed because you pulled a story and not the fact that you ran a story that was unethical. You know you’re fucked. The Hulkster is coming for you!

  20. SJWs can’t ever accept they were wrong, so the “editorial” staff wouldn’t take down a shameful, practically doxxxing story – verbal revenge porn (like Hulk Hogan’s video).
    The Intercept is Journalism, and even Glenn Greenwald said it was so far over the line … what were they thinking?

  21. Oh dear. I’m beginning to think the utterance of the word “radical” is bad in just about any context. Poor, pathetic Gawker, amoral, unethical shit-slingers finally stepped in it too deep and now they’re getting sucked down. It’s so nice to see actual justice. Maybe Kotaku will die with them! 😀

  22. They’re not fighting for any “RIGHT TO OUT GAY MEN”.

    They’re fighting for their right to be horribly destructive evil people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.