Why Gawker Was Wrong for Outing Married Man

Multiple staffers should be fired for this.

Screen Shot 2015-07-17 at 8.56.11 AMBelieve it or not, Gawker just stooped to a new low. Essentially, staff writer Jordan Sargent posted about a married man’s interest in men, and likely ruined his life and the lives of his family by doing so.

It’s actually a little worse than that. The married man was attempting to hire a male escort, who—after learning that the married man was the brother of a political figure—attempted to blackmail the married man. The married man eventually backed out of the deal, and so the escort went to Gawker and “exposed” the married man.

Sargent and Gawker’s editors gleefully, disgustingly, obliged. Did it matter that the married man didn’t actually end up doing anything? Nope. Did it matter that outing someone who might be gay is morally reprehensible? Not at all.

Not only did Gawker run the post, they did so while granting the escort anonymity. And you better believe Gawker paid the escort for this story.

The married man’s name and the name of his employer doesn’t matter. And we’re not going to link to the post because it is absolutely revolting. Gawker readers (and even one Gawker senior writer) felt the same way. There has been near universal disgust about the piece on Twitter and in the post’s comments. The outrage prompted this mature response from Gawker editor Max Read:

Instead of taking inventory of the public reaction and noticing that maybe—just maybe—Gawker was in the wrong here, Read doubled down and stamped his feet like a child.

Not that we expected something different. When a site thrives on destroying everything in its path no matter the consequences, it’s not surprising to learn that the people running it have lost their minds.