Last night, Gawker posted a long and sordid tale about the CFO of a major mass media company, an emotionally troubled porn star/hustler, and an attempted hookup gone horribly awry. No stranger to controversy — the site courts notoriety with the same vengeance it pursues clicks — the company is probably surprised by the vehemence with which the Internet is crying foul.
Related: Angry Ex Threw A Brick Through Gay Gawker Honcho Nick Denton’s Window
Minutes after the piece was posted, the criticisms started to fly, accusing the gossip site’s publisher Nick Denton and the story’s author Jordan Sargent of blackmail, gay-shaming and gleefully outing a married man with three kids — a professional who isn’t exactly a public figure.
Re/Code’s Kara Swisher:
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
An appalling act of gay shaming disguised as a story — thought we were way past this crap #ughnick: http://t.co/qkTvS6dOxz
— Kara Swisher (@karaswisher) July 17, 2015
The Intercept journalist Glenn Greenwald:
The dilemma of wanting to make a few points about the repugnant Gawker story & their “justification” but not wanting to give it attention… — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) July 17, 2015
ESPN’s Michelle Beadle:
Smells like someone just took a huge @Gawker in here. ????
— Michelle Beadle (@MichelleDBeadle) July 17, 2015
Honestly, it’s difficult to find someone who isn’t weighing in on the scandal on Twitter, and voices coming out in defense of the article are few and far between (and are mostly Gawker’s staffers.) Gawker Editor-in-Chief Max Read:
given the chance gawker will always report on married c-suite executives of major media companies fucking around on their wives — max read (@max_read) July 17, 2015
Although even some Gawker’s writers seem to be similarly appalled by the story, such as senior writer Adam Weinstein:
I had no part in this. I would not have chosen to run it as is. http://t.co/kHOz1YA87S
— Adam Weinstein (@AdamWeinstein) July 17, 2015
We recommend skipping the Gawker story altogether and rooting around the Internet for commentary about the post instead. It’s easy to find (there’s tons) and most of it is far more entertaining than the post itself, which is a bummer. (We at Queerty will be sure to closely read the reviews before buying our next hustler. It’s so hard to find good help nowadays.)
Many commentators are wondering whether Sargent’s post — which comes on the heels of a high-profile lawsuit involving an alarmingly unsexy Hulk Hogan sex tape — will completely undo Gawker Media. As “cbabgeae” commented beneath Sargent’s post, “Jordan basically admitted to being accessory after the fact to a felony, helping to blackmail and extort someone… Basically, if [the CFO] sues, Gawker is finished, as are all of its writers, since he can probably make a good claim for individual liability too.”
UPDATE: Because the people have a right to know, Daily Caller reports that the hustler/porn star in question is a certain Leif Derek Truitt who performs under the moniker Brodie Sinclair. Oh, and it looks like Gawker has just taken the post down. Denton says publishing the article is a decision he now regrets.
Chris Duffy
Couldn’t happen to a nicer group of smarmy, smart assed, faux outrage clickbaiters enthralled with their own sense of digital cleverness and keyboard righteousness.
Cam
Let’s look at this story if you take the gay out of it.
A very high profile, wealthy head of a company with strong ties to the president of the United States, hired a hooker to cheat on his wife and exchanged texts with her.
The Hooker found out the connections the guy had to the President and tried to pressure him. He didn’t help and she turned the info over to a gossip rag.
If this guy wasn’t gay NOBODY would be complaining that an extremely high profile guy was caught cheating on his wife in a little gossip story.
The only reason anybody is jumping to his defense is because they seem to think in some misguided way that his being gay should mean that nobody can report on him? He is CEO of one of the largest print media groups in the world.
odduck
@Cam: Huh? Are you actually serious?
“head of a company” Mmmmno. CFO, head of the accounting department.
“very high profile” How many CFOs can you name unless you work in economic journalism?
“caught cheating on his wife” How close are you involved with their family life? Are you certain of their monogamy? Isn’t Gawker pandering to the conservatives it seems to despise by equating marriage with monogamy?
This was a horribly shitty thing to do. They attacked an employee of a company they have a vendetta against. Conde Nast owns reddit, and Gawker has been shitting on reddit all week.
It also bears mentioning the vile harassment campaign mounted by Gawker against Anderson Cooper before he came out.
Milk
The story is typical modus operandi of the pink satan Parez Hilton. Being gay is not the main issue here. If you look strictly on professional level( please read the exchange between the two subjects before assuming this is just simply outing of someone). This is pure blackmailing when the said porn star reneged on the deal of hook up when he found out the status of his client, he attempt to blackmail the client to use his influence to change the out come of a case. Whether hooking is legal or illegal is not relevant.Gawker was happily helping the black mailer to accomplish the scheme. I hope the site get sued till thy kingdom come.
odduck
@Milk: It’s funny that you mention Perez. I have a very low opinion of him as well, but he actually spoke out against the piece and retweeted links revealing the identity of the blackmailer (who seems to have mental issues btw).
Ladbrook
I read the whole Gawker story (and feel very yucky for doing so) and I have to say that there are no good guys here.
1) Gawker clearly has a nasty agenda. Why else select this one hooker-gone-wrong story over the million other hooker-gone-wrong stories that are out there? The CFO is not an elected official. Yes, he’s a shit, but so are millions of other men and women. Why him??
2) The hooker needs to lose his hooker card. He’s a sociopath and if Gawker had ANY sense of ethics, they’d publish a story about him as a way of warning away any future victims. He clearly doesn’t understand the first rule of hooking: Mouth Shut!
3) This Geithner character is apparently a closeted gay man, which is only an issue in that he CHOSE to marry a straight woman, have children, and then proceed to cheat on her with paid escorts. If she knew, and they had an agreement that this was ok, and she could live the same way with the same rules, then (of course) no harm no foul, but the article doesn’t seem to reveal that to be the case. Being a closet-case (or bisexual) doesn’t give you a cheat-pass after you CHOOSE to enter a seemingly monogamous relationship. Sorry, but he’s a shit too.
Verdict: Flush all three.
tford216
@Cam: I agree. This guy is a dick who was willing to cheat on his wife. If it had been a woman it would have been bad. The fact that it was dude is not shameful because he may be gay but because the foundation of the marriage is really cracked.
doodles4eva
In case you’re all wondering, str8upgayporn has identified the wing nut porn star. His name is Brodie Sinclair (whose real name is Derek Truitt)
Seriously Gawker will burn and crash for this. I knew they were stupid and desperate for views. But not to this level…
odduck
@tford216: But he didn’t cheat. And you have no idea about anything involving their marriage, because he’s not a public figure. He’s not out there giving interviews about how much he loves and how she’s the only one for him. Making assumptions about others people’s sex lives and relationship arrangements is silly.
tricky ricky
@doodles4eva: he has incredibly poor taste in porn star escorts. brodie is rather a dead fish in the sex department.
tford216
@odduck: Whatever. If we find out differently then I am wrong but right now he is a closeted cheater and I feel bad for his wife and kids. Gawker sucks and trick was just being a trick.
Avery Alvarez
I think Gawker is sometimes the left wing Fox news.
They understand who their audience is – unhinged Social Justice Warrior types who want something to rage at (and are just as rabid and crazy as right wing christians), and they understand how to manufacture outrage to excite and titillate that particular audience.
odduck
@tford216: You should absolutely feel bad for them. I do too. Whether his wife knew about it or not, Gawker inflicted the most possible damage to that family, while trying to protect the identity of a blackmailer.
tford216
@odduck: While Gawker sucks we cannot leave out the cheating spouse. I know we are all excited to have a new member but let’s not forget he is an a**hole. When you solicit a prostitute you take risks with yourself and your family. I don’t just blame Gawker. There wouldn’t have been a story if he hadn’t attempted to cheat.
Captain Obvious
Gawker has been like this forever. I’m not sure there’s a more self-righteous and ignorant site that somehow has a big name. I mean maybe Reddit but they don’t actually write their own content.
Caliban
WTF, Queerty? You’re allowing hijack ads that take you to the Apple App Store against your will, to try and get you to accept or even buy game apps or something similar.
NOT okay! WAY not okay!
gaym50ish
I don’t know why Queerty is avoiding mentioning the name of the sleazeball porn star/hustler/would-be blackmailer. He should be exposed so other men can avoid him. He has been identified as Brodie Sinclair, real name Leif Derek Truitt. Calling him “emotionally troubled” does not excuse his behavior.
Njmtpa
As I was reading this story last night I had a strange feeling that this was information I had no business knowing. Something just seemed off. I was in support of Gawker with the whole Hulk Hogan thing, but now I hope they get roasted in court.
Martin Stone Hennessee
Eff those guys…the worst kind of tabloid, yellow journalism dressed up in “Social Justice Warrior” self-righteousness.
McShane
Doesn’t surprise me one bit that this was published. I am somewhat shocked that it wasn’t taken down almost immediately. A.J “SEO Bomb” Daulerio wants traffic at any cost. Looks like he got it. Sargent will resign or be “moving in a new direction” by the end of the day. They just went after David Geithner because of his ties to Reddit. Plus, Max Read the editor-in-chief linked the article on Twitter, then hours later was all like, “Oh Gawker you scamp, you’re always getting into trouble.” WHATEVER Max. You had one job, ONE JOB. This story is gross, everyone involved is gross. I feel gross.
Fuck… I freelanced for a Gawker related blog for a few years. It was stressful and rewarding. I had the pleasure of not actually physically meeting, but getting to know some of the most vile and immature sub-human, shit stirrers on the planet. Brian Moylan and Juzwiak, are both absolute garbage people.
odduck
@McShane: Were you pressured in any way? Looks like they also decided James Franco is a rapist and had no trouble pushing that without any evidence… http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/james-franco-gawker_b_7816032.html
charlie_jackpot
The prostitute was trying to blackmail him and he he hardly seems a worthy target
Why do these blackmailers always keep going for the bigger fish, keep it small and under the radar
mikelphx
So what if he is paying for sex? Many people do it. I am not for outing people like this. I think Perez Hilton did a few times and it is classless. Let people come out on their own. Everyone has their reasons for not coming out yet and we all have been there. It can be shameful at first and tons of haters. You have to be mentally ready to pull the trigger. The article stinks of gay shaming, too.
McShane
@odduck:
No. I lost interest in the topic. Kinja is a bitch. The whole 4Chan debacle. Anderson Cooper. Then the gore videos in the comments, my god the gore videos. The hierarchy of the old school commenters. Trolls hijacking something that you’ve worked hard on refining, only to have it turn into a pissing contest.
odduck
@McShane: Well, I’m glad you moved on and didn’t have to suffer any major indignities.
lykeitiz
Fine……you can argue all you want about whether or not the “cheater” should have been ID’d.
The bigger question is why wasn’t the hooker also ID’d? That would be because the “cheater” is a top exec at Gawker’s primary competition’s parent company. And if you think the hooker isn’t a twisted character, take a look at his Facebook page, which is public: https://www.facebook.com/sexyderek2720?fref=ts.
The hooker knew what he was doing and he knew who he was damaging, and since he wasn’t wronged by the “cheater” in any way (in fact he was paid even without performing), then why should his ID be protected?? Oh yeah…..because Gawker hates Reddit.
Captain Obvious
People who do porn are already at the bottom of the totem pole mentally in the first place. I dunno why people are always so surprised that outwardly pretty porn “stars” are quite ugly on the inside.
Most of them are beyond lazy, don’t want to have to do anything but lie on their backs, and only care about their looks.
On top of that most of them fall back on(or started with) prostitution… not that it’s any different anyway.
All of that aside, this is really about Gawker publishing this mess. They’re the real bad guys. The scummy hooker didn’t have the means to ruin this man’s life even though he clearly wanted to, Gawker did that for him.
While I don’t think cheating is ok, that is between him, and his spouse. Now the kids, the wife, and their families are all finding out the wrong way.
I feel the worst for this man honestly because he’s clearly closeted and going through something we should know about better than anyone. I’d be surprised if he wasn’t feeling suicidal right now. He clearly did not want anyone to know and now the world does… for no good reason.
I thought the gay witch hunt garbage died with Perez Hilton’s “career”.
Cam
@odduck: said… “@Cam: Huh? Are you actually serious?
“head of a company” Mmmmno. CFO, head of the accounting department.
“very high profile” How many CFOs can you name unless you work in economic journalism?
“caught cheating on his wife” How close are you involved with their family life? Are you certain of their monogamy? Isn’t Gawker pandering to the conservatives it seems to despise by equating marriage with monogamy?””
One of the largest print media companies in the world.
High profile – Yes, connections to the president of the United States qualifies as high profile.
Caught Cheating on his wife – Yes, he is married, and there is a titillating text exchange with a hooker.
If this was the CFO of Trump International, or The NYTimes, in a hooker story that was hetrosexual nobody would claim that a gossip rag shouldn’t run it.
What you can’t explain to me is why you think being gay is so shameful that it should automatically protect anybody from being written about in the gossip pages.
If a male celeb was gay, and was at a gay club and got into a fight but was closeted, should the gossip magazines say “Oh, well he’s gay, so he will be the one person we don’t write crap about”?
If that is the case, then every person in Hollywood would have started pretending to be closeted YEARS ago to keep In Touch and PEOPLE off their backs.
Cam
@Cam:
And to clarify, I think that these gossip magazines are basically piles of sh*t. My only commentary on this, is that if you don’t like that they wrote about this guy, you should frankly be equally outraged that they write that crap about anybody.
If you aren’t, then that says something.
Trippy
Ladbrook and Cam are right. This entire story stinks. Why would anyone defend 0r even partially defend any of the vile characters in this little drama. On most days Gawker publishes stuff that makes the National Enquirer blush. The hooker should be in jail for blackmail and general sleeziness, and the married guy should be horse whipped for not just cheating on his wife, but for lying to her and marrying her in the first place.
And as Cam said, the whole celebrity gossip industry is filth. The people working in it have no ethics or morals. I wonder how they’d feel if one of us followed them around all day and reported on who they sleep with or get high with or what they say when they’re drunk?
Trippy
@Captain Obvious: Don’t generalize or stereotype the men and women who work in porn or who work in the sex business. Each and every one is an individual and should be judged accordingly… as in any other profession. Sure, some are assholes, but on most days, you’re an asshole too (based on what you post here), but that doesn’t mean that the other people who do what you do for a living are assholes. I feel fairly certain that you’re the exception.
Kangol
@odduck: Yes, this was what really confused me. Gawker was protecting the extortionist but helping to destroy the closeted gay/bi man. Why?
I understand that if you have a salacious story you may want to publish it, but this CFO guy not only wasn’t–as far as I know–out to harm anyone, he actually paid the sex worker even though they didn’t get together, and that should have been it. The nutty sex worker, however, sought to destroy him. Why did Gawker participate as an accessory?
What’s also utterly bizarre is that the monstrously anti-gay Ted Cruz (!!!) ended up behaving better than Gawker and its editors. When you can say that, you know Gawker has a serious problem.
ProfessorMoriarty
Denton only made it worse with his “retraction”, which kept mentioning the name of the extortion victim over and over again.
Nobody knows what the deal is between the extortion victim and his wife. For all we know they may have an “arrangement”, as long as everything is kept on the down-low. Well, that’s blown to kingdom-come.
I hope the blackmail-ee sues Gawker, Denton and Sargent into oblivion.
Cam
All of you folks saying the guy should sue Gawker, you do realize that the truth is an absolute defense.
In other words he can’t sue them for anything. He was violating the law by attempting to hire a hooker, Gawker has the texts, they verified the phone number, the address, the pictures.
He can’t sue them because he got caught and embarrassed.
Captain Obvious
@Trippy: Are you ret@rded? I can’t take you seriously because you’re taking the comments section of a blog seriously and going as far as to not only hold a grudge but pretend you know me personally.
I couldn’t care less if you agree with my posts. And LOL at you defending “sex workers”, yeah they’re all stand up individuals who are contributing to the world at large.
Have fun with your autism or whatever your malfunction is. Make more replies convincing yourself that you know me through your multiple personalities or imagined conversations with an anonymous person on the internet. “Trippy” is right, you’re definitely tripping.
Raphael
I don’t care. He’s a cheater. At least his wife now know the truth and hopefully will get a divorce and find a good husband who isnt pretend to be something he’s not.
“3) This Geithner character is apparently a closeted gay man, which is only an issue in that he CHOSE to marry a straight woman, have children, and then proceed to cheat on her with paid escorts. If she knew, and they had an agreement that this was ok, and she could live the same way with the same rules, then (of course) no harm no foul, but the article doesn’t seem to reveal that to be the case. Being a closet-case (or bisexual) doesn’t give you a cheat-pass after you CHOOSE to enter a seemingly monogamous relationship. Sorry, but he’s a shit too.”
YES! I totally agree.
MCHG
@Cam:
“High profile – Yes, connections to the president of the United States qualifies as high profile.”
And by “connections” you mean his brother worked for the president. He personally has no connections to the president. And even if he did, being friends with the president does not automatically make one a public figure. There are legal definitions for the terms “private” and “public” figure.
“If this was the CFO of Trump International, or The NYTimes, in a hooker story that was hetrosexual nobody would claim that a gossip rag shouldn’t run it.”
Absolutely not true. CFOs are not public figures. We don’t live in the 1950’s anymore, people would absolutely side with some pencil pusher forced into public humiliation over doing something as tame and victimless as seeking the services of a prostitute.
“What you can’t explain to me is why you think being gay is so shameful that it should automatically protect anybody from being written about in the gossip pages.”
Good God almighty, is there ANY ounce of empathy in your heart? Do you not understand how being exposed as gay in a world where gay people are killed, harassed, beated, kicked out of their homes, fired for no good reason, ostracized, and maligned might be just a tad different from a cheeky story about an actor cheating on his wife or dating someone new? I’ve seen so many disingenuous pricks make the same argument. Apparently, if THEY are comfortable being gay, then everyone’s homosexuality should immediately be public knowledge, common decency be dammed.
“If a male celeb was gay, and was at a gay club and got into a fight but was closeted, should the gossip magazines say “Oh, well he’s gay, so he will be the one person we don’t write crap about”?”
The gossip magazines should do whatever they please. Most publications have editors who are capable of empathizing with other human beings and therefore wouldn’t want the weight of potentially ruining someone’s career and or life on their shoulders. However, I don’t see what a gossip rag outing a PUBLIC figure frequenting a PUBLIC gay bar has to do with this PRIVATE figure being blackmailed and then outed with the help of Gawker.
Giancarlo85
@MCHG: You’re funny. Hilarious even.
” Do you not understand how being exposed as gay in a world where gay people are killed, harassed, beated, kicked out of their homes, fired for no good reason, ostracized, and maligned might be just a tad different from a cheeky story about an actor cheating on his wife or dating someone new?”
Then why do you push politicians that are tied with the killings and jailing of gay people in Uganda? It seems to me you don’t give two shits less about gay people, but more about your own political agenda.
“Apparently, if THEY are comfortable being gay, then everyone’s homosexuality should immediately be public knowledge, common decency be dammed.”
Common decency? What are you talkinga bout?
Captain Obvious
The people in support of this behavior against private citizens should do well to remember that if it can happen to this man and we support it then it can happen to the rest of us.
Do I agree with cheating? No.
Do you have any skeletons in your closet? If Gawker finds out they’re free to post them for all to see regardless of the fact that you’re a total nobody and will be bullied by the internet which will trickle or flood into your real life.
Do the wife and kids deserve to find out this way? Does the man deserve to have it splashed across the web? It’s none of our business.
Public stoning, finger wagging, and BIBLE THUMPING… are you guys kidding me right now? He cheated on his wife, that’s for him to live with. It’s not ours to decide nor ours to report.
It’s wrong no matter how you word it.
Just wait till your time for the wave of public scrutiny(I’m sure on a much smaller scale) for something that’s no one’s business. I doubt you’ll be as receptive, especially if it impacts your life directly.
This man is not a public figure, it’s not right. Public figures have protection against this kind of stuff, he doesn’t. He could literally be looked up and killed by a crazy person behind this “story”, he could be harassed in real life, lose his job, and more.
Does the witch hunt really make you feel superior or something?
odduck
@Captain Obvious: You’re right, I never expected such a conservative view on marriage in here, and the attempts at sex worker shaming are gross.
It thought this site would be a GGG sex positive environment.
MCHG
“Then why do you push politicians that are tied with the killings and jailing of gay people in Uganda? It seems to me you don’t give two shits less about gay people, but more about your own political agenda.”
You have ZERO evidence that I do any of this. Just STOP lying already. Its tiresome. And there are no American politicians currently tied to the killings and jailing of gay people in Uganda. That would be a violation of the Logan Act.
And yeah, my political agenda of not having private people’s personal lives exposed to the public lol.
“Common decency? What are you talkinga bout?”
If someone is uncomfortable being gay, its long been a standard in the gay community that you leave that person alone. Its the decent thing to do. Outing people with reckless disregard for their lives because you yourself are comfortable being gay is such a tone deaf, purposeless, and callous action that it warrants the kind of scrutiny you’re seeing right now against Gawker.
MCHG
@Captain Obvious: Thats the problem, for many people this is about feeling superior. Many gay people have a disturbing “I’ve got mines, now screw you” attitude towards coming out. I saw a lot of them on the Advocate piece on the Gawker outing. I always find it funny when they look down on public figures for not coming out either. They think that because they’re a complete nobody and came out to a handful of friends and their parents than they are superior to an actor or athlete that doesn’t quite like the prospect of coming out to 7 billion strangers and in the process jeopardizing everything they have worked for their entire lives.
Jacob23
“Following A Wholly Unethical Post . . . ”
LOL! Queerty has discovered ethics? This is a cesspool which writes about people who knowingly infect others with HIV and which can’t use words like “right” and “wrong” and “moral” and “immoral” lest it come off as too judgmental. I wonder what Queerty’s ethical system is.
Maybe it can elaborate.
At least for now we know that committing adultery is has not been declared unethical but exposing that adultery has.
onthemark
@Captain Obvious: @MCHG: Yeah, it always seems like a lot of Queerty posters would love to impose prison terms for adultery! Like the Middle Ages with a gay twist. The most dismal thing here is they’re so gleeful about a “cheater” getting embarrassed, they’re even willing to side with a prostitute in order to pile on and feel superior. (Uh, prostitution actually IS illegal in 49 states while adultery isn’t.)
As a sane poster above notes, there is a specific LEGAL definition of “public figure” and it’s not met here.
BabbySeal
Please support Operation Baby Seal and voice your displeasure with Gawker’s affiliates and sponsors. More information here: https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3dmtfd/operationbabyseal_bgotd_message_all_of_gawkers/
SonOfKings
I am so angry about this story I barely know where to begin.
First, the number one rule of escorting (besides getting the money up front) is to assure discretion and protect the privacy of your client. The fact that a client may have politically connected relatives has nothing to do with the transaction you are executing. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
Second, the nature of the client’s relationship with his wife is between him and his wife. It is not our place to judge or dictate how a man behaves with his own wife. They could have an open relationship for all we know. That is not our business.
Third, the story was not newsworthy and should not have been reported like it was news. The client is a private citizen, and if he wants to hire an escort, that’s his own damn business. Nothing to ” gawk” at.
In this instance the client, though not innocent, is a victim all the same.
Giancarlo85
@MCHG: “You have ZERO evidence that I do any of this. Just STOP lying already. Its tiresome. And there are no American politicians currently tied to the killings and jailing of gay people in Uganda. That would be a violation of the Logan Act.”
You are a monumental liar. You are the one with no evidence. I have posted extensive evidence relating republicans directly to the Ugandan dictatorship, so stop your lying. The republicans don’t care about the Logan Act. What they do is they work with “The Fellowship” which is tied to Museveni and other dictators. Several republicans are members of “The Fellowship” and so is Museveni himself. This is called backdoor dealing.
http://www.politicalresearch.org/profiles-on-the-right-the-family-aka-the-fellowship-aka-c-street/
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34783946/ns/msnbc-rachel_maddow_show/t/uganda-be-kidding-me/
They work it with an organization to influence policy in Africa. This is all extremely well documented. The reason they can get away with it is because it’s through a third party organization.
“If someone is uncomfortable being gay, its long been a standard in the gay community that you leave that person alone. Its the decent thing to do. Outing people with reckless disregard for their lives because you yourself are comfortable being gay is such a tone deaf, purposeless, and callous action that it warrants the kind of scrutiny you’re seeing right now against Gawker.”
For one, I am fine with outing people who are causing damage to the gay community (like many closeted republicans). If they cause damage and try to play with fire, they’ll get burned. You, however, are a gay republican conservative and you want to kiss up to these anti-gay people who say one thing but do another in their own private life.
You are more disgusting and callous than anyone you fire your accusations at.
With regards to this Gawker article, however, I do not think it was appropriate in supposedly outing this person because he doesn’t have ties to anti-gay organizations/politicans and/or advocated anti-gay policy.
You are hapless, naive and your posts are indicative of someone who doesn’t read.
MCHG
“You are a monumental liar. You are the one with no evidence. I have posted extensive evidence relating republicans directly to the Ugandan dictatorship, so stop your lying. The republicans don’t care about the Logan Act. What they do is they work with “The Fellowship” which is tied to Museveni and other dictators. Several republicans are members of “The Fellowship” and so is Museveni himself. This is called backdoor dealing.”
What you’re saying is LITERALLY guilt by association. Essentially, if Republicans are tied to C-Street and C-Street is tied to someone who is tied to someone who passed a bill in Uganda hurting gay people, then Republicans are somehow responsible for that law. This is so intellectually dishonest it doesn’t merit a response.
“The republicans don’t care about the Logan Act. ”
It DOEST MATTER if they care about the Logan Act, violating the act is a federal crime and they would already be in prison if they were indeed influencing policy in Uganda.
“For one, I am fine with outing people who are causing damage to the gay community (like many closeted republicans). If they cause damage and try to play with fire, they’ll get burned. You, however, are a gay republican conservative and you want to kiss up to these anti-gay people who say one thing but do another in their own private life.”
Another comment pulled straight out of your rear end. I simply don’t think its my place to ruin, not only that politician’s life, but the life of his wife and kids, simply because he’s a “bad” gay. Ruining a politician’s reputation (and life) because you weren’t able to convince his district to vote against him is such a backwards and cowardly tactic.
A democratic opposition researcher summed up outing in one of the best ways possible: “And that’s the thing. We say it’s the hypocrisy not the gayness. But it’s really the opposite. There’s a certain segment of the population living in the dark ages, and we’d like to work them up. And hypocrisy makes for a great fig leaf.”
You can read more here: http://www.oppresearch.com/2014/08/op-ed-is-it-ok-to-out-aaron-schock-or-other-anti-gay-politicians/
“You are more disgusting and callous than anyone you fire your accusations at.”
Whats callous about me? The fact that I think private figures shouldn’t be outed, or the fact that I think politicians should be elected and rejected on the merits of their policies, not their personal lives?
“You are hapless, naive and your posts are indicative of someone who doesn’t read.”
More baseless ad hominem nonsense. When you’re done repeatedly lying about my views you’re more than welcome to have an adult conversation.
FStratford
I guess I don’t see things the way some people do.
This guy is a CFO – the second most powerful person in one of the biggest media companies in the whole wide world. If he really did not want his kids to be put through this then he should not be out hiring prostitutes in the first place. If he wants a man, he should divorce his wife and get one. Remember this guy is a repeated customer of the prostitute, not some one time one night stand. If he is in the closet, hiring prostitutes is not the way to continue to be in the closet. And yes, his sexual behavior outside of his marriage is not private. Owners of stock of Conde Nast have a right to know of these things. It’s a clause in his employment. I would not be surprised if the board fired him. After all, solicitation is a crime. For a CFO he is stupid by thinking with his little brain.
And why do people have this view of prostitutes as if they are or should be the epitome of secrecy? You guys have been watching too many freaking movies. There is no “honor code” for prostitutes, unlike doctors. If one beds a prostitute, he better ready that this is going to be public knowledge sooner rather than later. Someone who beds a prositute and expect secrecy, is either stupid or lunatic
I put this all on Geithner, the knucklehead.
Gawker is a rag. I expect this from them.
The prostitute’s behavior is expected as well.
I neither read gawker or would hire this prostitute.
Giancarlo85
@MCHG: Right pass your head! I suppose you didn’t even read the source I provided? You can only cite some rarely enforced law. When was the last time the Logan act actually enforced? Guilt by association? Are you really this naive in person? The Fellowship actively influences policy in Uganda. They have actual representatives in the country doing this.
The Republicans circumvent federal law all the time. Look at the letter they wrote to Israel in defiance of Obama. They didn’t get jailed for that. The Logan act is never enforced.
You pull things out of your ass all the time. You are simply air headed and naive if you think an antigay politicians personal life us private. They are public figures and if they are being hypocrites they must be exposed. These people are hurting the community and as suspected you don’t give a crap. You are more concerned about protecting Republican politicians.
Your comments and link at garbage. They have no bearing on reality. When a politician does one thing policy wise to hurt people, yet does the opposite in his personal life… He should be exposed as a hypocrite.
You really have no clue what you are talking about. You didn’t read any of the sources I provided and you only live by right wing fantasy and delusion. You actually believe that politicians should be elected by their merit? Why are you voting and supporting Republicans then?
Giancarlo85
Correction: I meant Republicans letter to Iran. That is actively trying to influence foreign policy. The Logan act is never enforced, hence no one was prosecuted for it.
Cam
@MCHG:
It’s funny to watch you try to paint the closeted multi-millionaire media executive who lives in New York as somehow a poor victim along the lines of a homeless kid kicked out of his house.
The guy is keeping a fake wife, could have exposed her to who knows what by hooking up with a prostitute and he got caught.
But please, by all means keep equating this guy with Rosa Parks.
You should call the Trump campaign, they could sure use your ability to paint anybody as a victim
SonOfKings
@FStratford: If the man is not a public figure or government official a story of this sort is not newsworthy, regardless of his job title. Not too many readers follow the personal sex lives of head accountants. What right do you have to tell a couple the must divorce if they are not monogamous. Open marriages do occur and they sometimes last for a lifetime. Secrecy is not realistic when it comes to sex, inside or outside marriage, but privacy is reasonable. Prostitution is the world’s oldest profession and there is s code. Which had been violated by a blabber mouth. There is virtue in people minding their own business.
SonOfKings
@Cam: How do you know his wife is fake. Some marriages are an economic contract, with sex and intimacy negotiated along other lines. I think it’s quite possible he and his wife have an understanding. And that’s their business.
lauraspencer
@Cam:
I agree with you!
Not sure how this is “gay shaming”. If we want equality then we have to be willing to be treated the same way that straight people are treated by the media. If it were swept under the rug and covered up that would suggest there is something shameful about it.
What I find fascinating is that a youngish man working in media in a major city in 2015 (and a Democrat) is living a life that seems to be more suited for a closeted Republican.
lauraspencer
@FStratford:
Well said!!
lauraspencer
@SonOfKings:
If you are referring to the CFO of a company as large as Conde Nast merely as a a head accountant then you don’t understand how corporate America works. Many companies are run by the bean counters and they have a lot of power. Having power at a media company allows how a story is reported. Ask Nick Denton.
Anna Wintour works for Conde Nast. Is she a public figure? Is Nick Denton who is a also a publisher like Anna a public figure?
SonOfKings
@lauraspencer: Major corporations are “run” by CEOs not bookkeepers. David Geithnet does not “run” Conde Nast. He is not a public figure. Anna Wintour IS a public figure. If she were to become involved in a sex scandal that would be be news. You see the difference?
lauraspencer
@SonOfKings:
No. I work for a major media company and our CFO is NOT a bookkeeper.
Can’t figure out how Anna a senior exec at Conde Nast is a public figure, yet another senior exec who is the CFO….Chief Financial Officer who is easily making millions in salary is just a lowly bookkeeper.
Both are highly compensated and visible execs in the industry. They both have contracts that certainly have morals clauses.
MCHG
@Giancarlo85: “Right pass your head! I suppose you didn’t even read the source I provided?”
I have extensive knowledge of C Street and the Fellowship, and am familiar with the concerns you’re citing in regards to policy in Uganda.
“Guilt by association? Are you really this naive in person? The Fellowship actively influences policy in Uganda. They have actual representatives in the country doing this.”
Yes, guilt by association, its when you unjustly fault a third party (Republican politicians) for the actions (imprisonment of gays in Uganda) of an associated party (Fellowship/C Street).
“The Republicans circumvent federal law all the time. Look at the letter they wrote to Israel in defiance of Obama. They didn’t get jailed for that. The Logan act is never enforced.”
As elected members of our government, they have every right to warn a foreign government that the US govt’s position is subject to change once Obama is out of office. None of that violated the Logan Act. Also, claiming that Republicans could openly violate the Logan Act (a felony) and not face consequences for it is comical. Tell that to Michael Grimm, whos facing prison time for failing to report income from a restaurant he owns on his taxes.
“You pull things out of your ass all the time. You are simply air headed and naive if you think an antigay politicians personal life us private”.
I said I prefer to treat those lives as private. You can have whatever perspective you want.
“These people are hurting the community and as suspected you don’t give a crap. You are more concerned about protecting Republican politicians.”
No, I simply care more about a politician representing the will of his party and constituents than harassing them into espousing a stance on gay rights they obviously have no intention of supporting.
“Your comments and link at garbage. They have no bearing on reality.”
My comment, linking to a Democratic opposition researcher who has worked for hundreds of political campaigns, is shit? Lol. Opposition researchers know how the political landscape works. Hypocrisy never moved a political needle. David Vitter would not be in Congress if that were the case. The hosts of MSNBC would not have their jobs if that were the case (you know, the ones that constantly badger Republicans to “pay their fair share” yet somehow fail to pay their own taxes: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/04/four-msnbc-hosts-plagued-by-tax-debt-205942.html)
The truth is outing is a homophobic tactic. Everyone remembers how the condemnation of Aaron Schock revolved around how that “GURL dressed so fem” instead of the serious ethical issues that eventually brought him down. Outing is asking the entire world to focus solely on a person’s sexuality when forming an opinion of them, instead of their reasoning or track record.
“When a politician does one thing policy wise to hurt people, yet does the opposite in his personal life… He should be exposed as a hypocrite.”
Awesome, when you out an anti-gay marriage politician as having a secret gay marriage, I’ll be right there cheering you on. Catch Scott Walker being a secretly gay boy scout leader? Go ahead and out the guy. However, saying, that someone who is privately gay should be forced out because they don’t support gay rights is an amazing attempt to twist the meaning of the word hypocrisy. There are gay people who are against gay marriage, or hate crime legislation, or gay boy scout leaders. I’m not asking you to agree with them. I’m just saying, forcing these people out because they’re doing the will of their party and constituents makes you no better than them.
“You actually believe that politicians should be elected by their merit? Why are you voting and supporting Republicans then?”
Because I happen to have different political views than you and want different policies to be enacted. To me, the fact that you belong to a different political party means nothing. Its why I haven’t attacked you political views once. To you however, supporting SOME Republican politicians makes me evil. Its that kind of knee-jerk garbage that drives many people away from the left, for the record.
MCHG
@Cam: Ohh right, I forgot: if you’re rich and an adult, its okay for people to treat you like garbage. Carry on, then.
“The guy is keeping a fake wife, could have exposed her to who knows what by hooking up with a prostitute and he got caught.”
You have no idea what their arrangement is. For all you know he could be bi and she could be fully supportive of him getting some strange on the side. However, all of these speculations jump the gun, given that the guy completely denied communicating with the escort, and the escort happens to be a homophobic mental case. Either way, I remember hearing somewhere than two wrongs don’t make a right.
“But please, by all means keep equating this guy with Rosa Parks.”
I never did this. Even if you were exaggerating for effect, this sentence still wouldn’t work. I never said this man was a man of virtue. I simply said it was wrong of Gawker to out him. The end.
“You should call the Trump campaign, they could sure use your ability to paint anybody as a victim”
Why would Trump want to paint himself as a victim? His whole shtick is being a brazen bully. Geez, you’re making no type of sense today.
Giancarlo85
@MCHG: What an idiotic braindead reply. Do you have anything original to post? Or are you this idiotic and naive in person? This is what I expect from a reactionary right wing nutcase.
“I have extensive knowledge of C Street and the Fellowship, and am familiar with the concerns you’re citing in regards to policy in Uganda.”
You don’t know anything and you didn’t even read what I posted. You have no clue what you’re talking about.
“Yes, guilt by association, its when you unjustly fault a third party (Republican politicians) for the actions (imprisonment of gays in Uganda) of an associated party (Fellowship/C Street).”
Except many of these republicans are cozying up to Museveni. This is proven fact.
“As elected members of our government, they have every right to warn a foreign government that the US govt’s position is subject to change once Obama is out of office. None of that violated the Logan Act. Also, claiming that Republicans could openly violate the Logan Act (a felony) and not face consequences for it is comical. Tell that to Michael Grimm, whos facing prison time for failing to report income from a restaurant he owns on his taxes.”
HYPOCRISY ALERT! HYPOCRISY ALERT! You just fell into a huge trap. Those idiots wrote a letter to a foreign government in the intent of influencing foreign policy. You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. The Logan Act is NOT ENFORCED. And you did NOT answer my question of when was the last time it was enforced. You suffer from severe dementia if you think some obscure act that is never enforced suddenly matters. And this has nothign to do with tax evasion, idiot.
“No, I simply care more about a politician representing the will of his party and constituents than harassing them into espousing a stance on gay rights they obviously have no intention of supporting.”
Spoken like a true drone with no real mental power. The will of his party and constituents? WRONG. This is about exposing him as a hypocrite and showing how stupid his constituents are. But then again people like you exist and you vote for a party that is against your own interests.
“The truth is outing is a homophobic tactic. Everyone remembers how the condemnation of Aaron Schock revolved around how that “GURL dressed so fem” instead of the serious ethical issues that eventually brought him down. Outing is asking the entire world to focus solely on a person’s sexuality when forming an opinion of them, instead of their reasoning or track record.”
BULL FUCKING SHIT. Outing someone who is anti-gay is NOT a homophobic tactic. It has every intent of showing the person as a hypocrite (much like how you are being a massive hypocrite). You really have no clue what you’re talking about. When someone is pushing anti-gay policies and is hiring gay prostitutes or doing something like that (or even hiring prostitutes in general), they need to be exposed for the lying hypocrites they are. That goes directly to their record.
“However, saying, that someone who is privately gay should be forced out because they don’t support gay rights is an amazing attempt to twist the meaning of the word hypocrisy.”
You can’t fucking read. I said if they advocate anti-gay policies or laws, they should be outed 1000%. Not even one doubt in my mind. You’re a raving lunatic and a right wing sociopath.
” I’m just saying, forcing these people out because they’re doing the will of their party and constituents makes you no better than them.”
Their party are a party of fucking idiots and sometimes they need to rise above their party, or else be exposed for the hypocrites they are. And yes I am better than them and I am better than a sugarcoating reactionary like you
“Because I happen to have different political views than you and want different policies to be enacted. ”
Your views and policies are extremely dangerous to this country and its future. I don’t belong to any political party by the way. I just know the republican party is incredibly self destructive and you do not use your mind when you support the party of bigots and sell-outs.
“Its that kind of knee-jerk garbage that drives many people away from the left, for the record.”
Oh wake the fuck up. Your ENTIRE post is knee-jerk reactionary garbage. Drives many people away from the left? More projections from the right wing nasty himself. Your ATTITUDE drives away people from your political views. The fact that you support some republicans says it all. You are nothing more than a sell-out to this entire country and especially towards gay people.
Giancarlo85
@MCHG: Wake up peanut. Your viewpoints are not relevant to reality and you are supporting a party and candidates that hate you. Your views are incredibly destructive to the economy, to the environment, to the gay community and to the future of this nation.
You cite an obscure law that isn’t enforced and you yap on like a little dog about how bad the left is… and how I’m driving people away from the left. You just repeat the same lines you saw on Fox News.
MCHG
@Giancarlo85: “What an idiotic braindead reply. Do you have anything original to post? Or are you this idiotic and naive in person? This is what I expect from a reactionary right wing nutcase.”
Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem,and another ad hominem. Realize how I don’t have to sink to these when arguing with you?
“You don’t know anything and you didn’t even read what I posted. You have no clue what you’re talking about.”
So, despite the fact that we’re arguing on this very topic and I’ve already seen the reports (including one from Rachel Maddow) in the past, I “don’t know anything” lol. I love your amazing mind reading skills.
“Except many of these republicans are cozying up to Museveni. This is proven fact.”
Then prove it. Link to a credible post that says Republican politicians have cozied to MMuseveni and influenced his policy on the gay community.
“HYPOCRISY ALERT! HYPOCRISY ALERT! You just fell into a huge trap.”
How old are you, really?
“Those idiots wrote a letter to a foreign government in the intent of influencing foreign policy.”
They wrote a letter influencing the policy of their own country. I know some Obama fans would like to ignore the two other branches of government when its inconvenient, but the fact is Congress has every right to influence the US’s foreign policy. To say that elected members of the US government have NO RIGHT to influence policy decisions made by their own government, or that this is in any way comparable to politicians influencing policy in Uganda that has nothing to do with the US is laughable.
“You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. The Logan Act is NOT ENFORCED. And you did NOT answer my question of when was the last time it was enforced.”
I don’t have the date off the top of my head. I’m not a historian. Its rather silly to claim that the Logan Act is not enforced, when violation of said act is a felony.
“You suffer from severe dementia if you think some obscure act that is never enforced suddenly matters.”
Again, ZERO evidence on your part that its never enforced. It matter because it determines whether government officials are interfering in another country’s policy, and you happen to be accusing Republicans of interfering in another country’s policy.
“And this has nothign to do with tax evasion, idiot.”
My point, which flew over your head like a Boeing, was that Republicans regularly face charges for even the most minor of crimes, like not letting the government know that they’re receiving income from a restaurant, in Michael Grimm’s case. Your claim that Republicans avoid the law all the time and therefore would not be charged if they indeed violated the Logan Act doesn’t stand to scrutiny.
“The will of his party and constituents? WRONG. This is about exposing him as a hypocrite and showing how stupid his constituents are.”
Its about blatantly screwing someone over because they represent views you disagree with. You oughta look up the dictionary definition of hypocrisy, because being secretly gay and disagreeing with other gay people is not “hypocrisy”. Hey look, politics is a dirty business. If you wanna mess with the opposing party by making personal attacks against their elected representatives, then do it! Plenty of people work dirty in politics. Just be honest about why you’re doing it.
“BULL FUCKING SHIT. Outing someone who is anti-gay is NOT a homophobic tactic.”
Ok, how many times do you ruin the lives of straight politicians who oppose gay rights? How deep do you dig into THEIR lives. How often do THEIR sex lives wind up on the news? If you’re treating a gay person differently than you treat a straight person for doing the exact same thing (pushing policies that are against the interest of some in the gay community), then you’re a homophobe. Weaponizing someone’s sexuality for a political hit is blatant homophobia.
“You’re a raving lunatic and a right wing sociopath.”
I’m sorry, I find it sooo funny that you’re calling me a sociopath because I DON’T want to ruin their lives by exposing their private sex lives to the world. Lmaoo, do you know what the word sociopath even means? Someone who lacks empathy, like you do towards all people in the closet, because you want to feel superior to them. It ain’t like what you’re doing is new, dude.
“Their party are a party of fucking idiots”
Its always funny when someone is decrying stupidity while making barely being able to string a coherent sentence together. “Their party IS”… you’re talking in the present tense.
“And yes I am better than them”
Thanks, thats the only point I’m trying to make. Outing is about a certain set within the gay community trying to feel superior to other gays.
“Your views and policies are extremely dangerous to this country and its future.”
You have every right to believe this. I don’t ask you to agree with me, and never will. I just ask to be allowed to have my own political views in peace.
“Oh wake the fuck up. Your ENTIRE post is knee-jerk reactionary garbage. Drives many people away from the left? More projections from the right wing nasty himself. Your ATTITUDE drives away people from your political views. The fact that you support some republicans says it all. You are nothing more than a sell-out to this entire country and especially towards gay people.”
Maybe someday you’ll read through your rageful post and recognize the irony of you accusing ME of having a bad attitude lol.
“Wake up peanut.”
Greatest. Insult. Ever.
“Your viewpoints are not relevant to reality”
Yet they’re supported by the current majority in Congress. I guess Congress is imaginary. Ditto to the people who voted them in too.
“and you are supporting a party and candidates that hate you.”
Nope.
“Your views are incredibly destructive to the economy, to the environment, to the gay community and to the future of this nation.”
Massive spending and low job numbers are the real economic threat to the country. You might want to ask your president why he has the record lowest number of people in the work force if his policies are so good. I fully support taking care of the environment. The gay community is more than welcome to stop targeting Christian businesses and trying to bankrupt the owners for refusing to do something they know if offensive to the religious person’s beliefs.
“You cite an obscure law that isn’t enforced and you yap on like a little dog about how bad the left is… and how I’m driving people away from the left. You just repeat the same lines you saw on Fox News.”
Please show the the Fox News segment on the Logan Act or on outing. I’ll wait.
SonOfKings
@SonOfKings: You claim to work for a “major media company,” yet you don’t have a clue about what makes a story newsworthy? A virtually unknown glorified accountant makes arrangements to transact with an obscure male escort, and you think that’s a front page story? Nobody’s a public figure, nobody’s a government official, nobody’s a spiritual leaders, no misappropriation of funds, nobody hurt, nobody injured, or killed, no drugs involved, NO STORY. That’s why the ditors who allowed this non-story to be published have been for ed out of their jobs. Something isn’t newsworthy simply because one of the subjects has a well-paying job and runs a bookeeping office at a big company. Somebody needs to be famous or dead for this to be a story worth publishing.
FStratford
@SonOfKings:
He is not head accountant he is the CFO. Head accountants are controllers. You know nothing.
FStratford
@SonOfKings: He is not a head accountant. He is a CFO. Head accountant is a Controller. Controller is two steps below a CFO, right under VP of Finance
A CFO is a public figure in as much as his life in public and private is reviewed by stockholders and other stakeholders of the business.
It does not matter if he is gay or straight, if his job is a CFO you can bet that he has a clause in his contract against crime (solicitation of a hooker) and of discretion.
A CEO is allowed indiscretions but never the CFO. A CFO is guarding the $. He is required to be the most conservative member of the C-Suite.
Dont misrepresent what a CFO is – you only make yourself look like a fool.
FStratford
@lauraspencer:
I know right? Head accountant? That is such a lame excuse. As if we are stupid enough not to know what a CFO really is. What a stupid moron he is.
FStratford
@SonOfKings: “Some marriages are an economic contract, with sex and intimacy negotiated along other lines.”
You just described a marriage of convenience aka a fake marriage.
Soldier_Medic
the latest
Gay Porn Star Brodie Sinclair Files $5,000,000 Defamation Lawsuit Against David Geithner And Condé Nast
http://str8upgayporn.com/derek-truitt-gay-porn-star-david-geithner/