Gawker article outs a private citizen

[TopSpin]

Here's another blow to media ethics. I can't see the news value in this piece.

Condé Nast's CFO Tried To Pay $2,500 for a Night With a Gay Porn Star

Comments section at the bottom of the piece is pretty lively.

 

[Big Circus]

Let's not forget that Gawker's current favorite punching bag is Conde Nast subsidiary Reddit.

 

[Mr. Sunshine]

I hate myself for reading Gawker as much as I do. I should switch to Fox News.

 

[cjericho]

The outing may not have news value, but the discrimination case does, especially considering he contacted public figures. Don't know the law very well, but thought a service dog issued for PTSD was allowed to pretty much go anywhere, even establishments that have no pets signs.

 

[BDC99]

Haven't read the comments, but failing to see a big issue here. The CFO of a major publication is a private citizen? And then there's this:

At some point, Ryan searched for his new friend’s phone number on Facebook and discovered that the “David” he was talking to was David Geithner, an important and politically connected figure.

I don't give a **** about it, but it is newsworthy. Dude ****ed up, and you don't think there's news value in this married public figure trying to hook up with a gay escort? OK.

 

[BDC99]

My problem from the beginning is letting the other guy remain anonymous. Both are ****bags and deserve to be revealed.

 

[JayFarrar]

Weren't you the same guy who had a problem with the NFL guys medical record being tweeted?

And working for a media company doesn't make you a public figure.

 

[BDC99]

Weren't you the same guy who had a problem with the NFL guys medical record being tweeted?

And working for a media company doesn't make you a public figure.

Sort of. I thought it was unnecessary to tweet the actual records, yes. And the CFO of one of the most well-known media companies in the world isn't a public figure? Now, if as the comments suggest, the writer was aware that the blackmail was going on BEFORE he got the full story, that's a different issue.

 

[LongTimeListener]

David Geithner. Hehe.

 

[JayFarrar]

Could you name the CFO of Conde Nast before this article?

The answer, which I know before you say it, is no.

But let's just say that you did know who the CFO of, maybe, the third most well known magazine publishing group in the United States was.

And let's stipulate, that somehow, being a person who didn't do TV. Who didn't write and who couldn't be picked out of a crowd with 10 guesses was a public figure.

What did he do wrong?

Cheating on your wife isn't a crime. Sending someone money isn't a crime. Arranging to meet someone, then canceling isn't a crime.

But he paid for sex!

No, they never actually got together.

And why does gawker feel the need to protect the other person, who actually did commit a crime?

Because the male porn star is clearly extorting this very important "public figure." Gawker also aided and abetted in the crime.

Clocks ticking on when gawker has the plug pulled.

 

[TopSpin]

... you don't think there's news value in this married public figure trying to hook up with a gay escort? OK.

Can't remember the last time I ever considered a chief finance officer, you know, the guy or gal behind the scenes running finances, as a public figure. Hell, I never heard of this guy until tonight.

 

[BDC99]

Certainly he's not Donald Trump but a high profile exec, and brother of a high profile political figure is fair game. You could definitely argue he's not a public figure but i think you'd lose. I have several issues with this story. The idea that the CFO was outed is not one of them. Gawker seemingly taking his side and letting him remain anonymous is my biggest concern.

 

[BDC99]

Oh, and if he's not a public figure, how is it that this douchenozzle figures he can exploit the situation?

 

[BDC99]

And if Gawker aided in the blackmail I've already said that is a bigger issue

 

[TopSpin]

You could definitely argue he's not a public figure but i think you'd lose.

Legal definition of public figure and limited purpose public figure:

All-purpose public figures are private individuals who occupy 'positions of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figure for all purposes. . . . They invite attention and comment.' Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345 (1972). For these individuals, the actual malice standard extends to virtually all aspects of their lives.

This category includes movie stars, elite professional athletes, and the heads of major corporations. Tom Cruise is one; that character actor you recognize instantly but can't quite name is probably not an all-purpose public figure.

As with public officials, the passage of time does not cause this class of individuals to lose their public figure status as long as the original source of their fame is of continued interest to the public.

Limited-Purpose Public Figures

The second category of public figures is called ‘limited-purpose’ public figures. These are individuals who "have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1974). They are the individuals who deliberately shape debate on particular public issues, especially those who use the media to influence that debate.

Well, ****. Given those clear guidelines, have your people get with mine and I'll see you in court, BDC99.

 

[BDC99]

Clear guidlines? Are you new? High profile business execs are most certainly public figures. And given the political connection I'd think it would be inarguable. But it is up for debate. There is no cut and dried definition

 

[BDC99]

And just because I have never heard of him means diddly squat

 

[qtlaw24]

Legal definition of public figure and limited purpose public figure:

All-purpose public figures are private individuals who occupy 'positions of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figure for all purposes. . . . They invite attention and comment.' Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345 (1972). For these individuals, the actual malice standard extends to virtually all aspects of their lives.

This category includes movie stars, elite professional athletes, and the heads of major corporations. Tom Cruise is one; that character actor you recognize instantly but can't quite name is probably not an all-purpose public figure.

As with public officials, the passage of time does not cause this class of individuals to lose their public figure status as long as the original source of their fame is of continued interest to the public.

Limited-Purpose Public Figures

The second category of public figures is called ‘limited-purpose’ public figures. These are individuals who "have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1974). They are the individuals who deliberately shape debate on particular public issues, especially those who use the media to influence that debate.

Well, ****. Given those clear guidelines, have your people get with mine and I'll see you in court, BDC99.

Those distinctions are for defamation purposes; you are free to report the truth about anyone at anytime. Of course it better be true.

 

[BDC99]

Public Figure legal definition of Public Figure

 

[BDC99]

Should we also be pissed that Jerry Remy's kid made the paper? Or Andy Reid's? Yes, those were public records but WTF is the difference? Is that a big enough distinction? I've never liked the families of famous folks being fair game but that ship has sailed