Gawker is a hot mess right now

Oh boy was today a fun day for anyone not part of the entire Gawker controversy.

For those out of the loop, let me fill you in. Last night, Gawker — in all their holy wisdom — decided to publish a story outing Condé Nast CFO. The blowback was fast and furious, as many lambasted the editorial staff's revolting decision to make public the executive's attempt to pay a gay porn star for a night of fun in a Chicago hotel — essentially outing him as gay. You know, something Gawker-owned site Jezebel excplicitly says you shouldn't do.

As it turns out, it was all part of a blackmailing plan by the escort when the Condé Nast CFO backed out of the situation when it became clear the escort's attempt at extorting him for help with his housing situation. And Gawker gleefully ran with it, willingly assisting in the blackmail.

Fast forward hours later, and the backlash was strong. Many were raged, including Gawker's readers and part of their own staff.

As a result of the vehement response by just about anyone with a soul, the managing partnership of Gawker Media — in a 4-2 vote — decided to remove the original story. It was the first time the site "has removed a significant news story for any reason other than factual error or legal settlement," according to Gawker owner and founder Nick Denton in a post detailing the decision.

Though the damage was done, many — again, those with a soul — agreed it was the right decision. Well, almost everybody.

Shortly after the story's removal, Gawker's crack squad of an editorial staff released their own statement, basically disagreeing with the take down.

"Our union drive has expressed at every stage of the process that one of our core goals is to protect the editorial independence of Gawker Media sites from the influence of business-side concerns. Today’s unprecedented breach of the firewall, in which business executives deleted an editorial post over the objections of the entire executive editorial staff, demonstrated exactly why we seek greater protection. Our opinions on the post are not unanimous but we are united in objecting to editorial decisions being made by a majority of non-editorial managers. Disagreements about editorial judgment are matters to be resolved by editorial employees. We condemn the takedown in the strongest possible terms."

Though many of the Gawker editorial staff were supposedly against the "objectionable nature" of the original story, a lot of them believe it should remain published. Because of course they do. Many (read: not all) have their arrogant heads stuck so far up their ass that they honestly believe the story should've stayed. And then they have the nerve to say it's about "our company's approach to editorial freedom and transparency?" You're freedom is about to get the company paying you sued for a crap ton of money. And then you're all out of a job, so good luck with that.

It should be noted that not all of Gawker's editorial staff were in support of the original article, and I'm sure many of them agree with its removal, but boy do the ones arguing for the story's existance really come off as haughty and full of self-importance.

For those of you part of Gawker who disagreed with the original story and are glad to see it pulled, I really do feel bad you're being lumped in with the editorial union. For those of you who genuinely think the post should remain, I can't wait until someone digs up some skeletons in your closet and decides to publish it.

(Editor's Note: This opinion expressed in this piece is strictly that of GameZone's Editor-in-Chief, Matt Liebl, and not a reflection of the GameZone staff)