Out of bounds? How Gawker ’s outing a married man fits into the boundaries of journalism

Abstract

Gawker ignited a controversy when it published an article about a married Conde Nast executive who allegedly sought the services of a gay escort. The popular blog eventually removed the article following condemnation from readers and other journalists. Guided by the frameworks of boundary work and field theory, this study analyzed 65 news articles and 2203 online comments and found that journalists and audiences problematized Gawker’s identity as a journalistic organization and evaluated the article based on traditional standards of newsworthiness, audiences asserted their role in journalism’s larger interpretive community, and that the larger interpretive community assessed the article based on the ethics of outing. Investigating the discourse generated by this critical incident is important because it identifies where journalists and readers draw the boundaries of legitimate journalism, specifies the place of ethics in boundary discourse, and informs journalistic practice about the phenomenon of outing in the news.

Keywords

Audiences boundary work Bourdieu ethics field theory journalism outing readers’ comments tabloidization

Introduction

Sometime in early July 2015, the chief financial officer of mass media company Conde Nast, a married man with three children, allegedly contacted a gay male escort. He agreed to pay $2500 for a 3-hour meeting. However, while they were exchanging text messages, the escort snooped around, searched for the client’s phone number on Facebook, and matched the client’s identity with a selfie the client had previously texted. The escort discovered he was transacting with a seemingly powerful man, whose brother was at one time part of President Barack Obama’s cabinet. The escort then began sending the client documents about a house dispute he was involved in, wanting the client to use his political connections to solve it. The Conde Nast executive eventually canceled the meeting but still paid the escort the full amount. However, the escort, also a porn star, contacted the popular blog Gawker instead, and writer Jordan Sargent (2015) later published a story identifying the executive and embedded the actual text exchanges between the two, including the media executive’s selfie, while keeping the identity of the escort anonymous.

The response to the article was swift and almost unanimous. Commenters on Gawker’s website expressed disgust. Other media outlets condemned it. The Huffington Post, for example, pointed out that the client was a private figure and that Gawker was “ruining a man’s life” (Arana, 2015). Some Gawker editors and writers defended the publication, with editor Max Read tweeting: “Given the chance, Gawker will always report on married c-suite executives of major media companies fucking around on their wives” (Roy, 2015). Not everyone at Gawker agreed. The day after publishing the post, Gawker’s managing partnership voted 4-2 to remove it, with the executive editor and president, who were involved in editing and reviewing the piece, dissenting (Trotter, 2015). In explaining the decision to remove the post, Nick Denton (2015), Gawker chief executive officer, said Gawker is no longer “the insolent blog that began in 2003” and that it now produces “important and interesting journalism.” The original link to the story is still active, but only a brief explanation and the readers’ comments remain, with a disclaimer saying the post was removed “against the objections of Gawker Media’s editorial leadership” (Sargent, 2015).

Was the reporter correct in considering the story newsworthy? Or was Gawker’s chief executive officer justified in removing the post? This study considers Gawker’s decision and the response, both from journalists and the public, as a “critical incident” in journalism (Zelizer, 1992). Critical incidents “refer to those moments by which people air, challenge, and negotiate their own boundaries of practice” (Zelizer, 1992: 67). The controversy surrounding the article did not just force Gawker reporters, editors, and leaders to reflect on their practices, but it also elicited reflections from other media organizations and hundreds of Gawker readers who participated through their online comments. These reflections focused on issues of journalism ethics, routines, and identities. Thus, these discussions also spoke to the continually shifting boundaries of acceptable journalistic practice (Carlson, 2015). In a period when journalism’s boundaries are shifting, journalistic norms and ethics become more salient in demarcating the field’s identity (Singer, 2007).

This study analyzes the discourse generated by the article from within journalism’s interpretive community (Zelizer, 1993) and from the larger meaning-making community that includes audiences (Berkowitz and TerKeurst, 1999; Robinson and DeShano, 2011). In doing so, this study contributes not only to understanding negotiations about journalism’s boundaries and the place of journalism ethics in this process, but also to defining the increasingly important role of audiences in journalism’s ongoing boundary work.

Literature review

Gawker and journalism’s boundaries

Often described as a media gossip site, Gawker is part of Gawker Media, a network of blogs that includes the technology-oriented site Gizmodo, the sports blog Deadspin, and the feminist site Jezebel. Founded in 2003 by Nick Denton in his living room, Gawker is now among the most visited media sites in the United States (Mahler, 2015). Gawker rose to Internet fame—or notoriety—by posting about celebrity scandals, the most notable of which included a sex video clip involving former wrestling superstar Hulk Hogan, who sued the blog and was awarded $115 million in damages (Madigan and Somaiya, 2016). Gawker now mixes gossip and celebrity news with news aggregation and original reporting, heralding its entry into the journalistic field (Denton, 2015). Yet even within the journalistic field, other players still question Gawker’s status as a legitimate journalistic entity, with one article describing Gawker, along with sites such as BuzzFeed and the Huffington Post, as “tabloid descendants” (Uberti, 2014: para. 11).

Such description demonstrates how journalism functions as a field of constant struggle toward either preservation or transformation (Bourdieu, 1998). When new players, such as Gawker, enter the field, they are confronted by prevailing rules, called the doxa (Bourdieu, 1998). New players can either play by the rules or aim to transform them (Bourdieu, 2005). The power to contribute to transforming or preserving the field’s internal logic depends, in part, on a player’s capital. Field theory identifies two main forms of capital: economic and cultural. While cultural capital refers to resources internal to the field, such as knowledge and credibility, economic capital refers to monetary resources or any other resource that can be transformed into revenues, such as audience size (Benson and Neveu, 2005). Thus, Gawker’s Internet popularity provides it with significant capital, which explains its increasingly important place in the field. But, just like any other new players, Gawker has to pass through a process of legitimation, a process often based on the field’s internal rules that define journalism’s boundaries (Tandoc and Jenkins, 2017).

An examination of Gawker’s journalistic identity depends largely on where journalism’s boundaries are drawn. Consistent with field theory, journalists engage in boundary work when they try to clarify the rules of the field, thereby legitimizing who is included and excluded. “Struggles over journalism are often struggles over boundaries” (Carlson, 2015: 2). The notion of boundary work spurs from sociologist Thomas Gieryn’s discussion of distinctions between fields of knowledge, such as religion and science, and how they are “delimited, attacked, and reinforced” (Schudson and Anderson, 2009: 96). Studying journalism’s boundaries, therefore, includes assessments of “insiders vs. outsiders, of acceptable practices vs. deviant ones, of us-vs.-them distinctions made by institutions and individuals alike” (Lewis, 2015: 218). Soft boundary work refers to “talk that articulates boundaries,” while hard boundary work refers to “action that actualizes boundaries” (Lewis, 2015: 221). This study adopts the former approach, considering how boundaries are defined by words and symbols. Boundary work also includes boundary objects, such as news discourse and comments, which function as sites for both new and old players to create, explore, and debate multiple meanings related to their place in the field (Robinson, 2015; Tandoc and Jenkins, 2017).

Boundary work in journalism is not new. An enduring example of boundary work is how journalists address tabloidization. The term tabloid historically referred to the particular size and shape of a newspaper. However, tabloidization has come to be considered as a form of journalism emphasizing scandal and entertainment over politics and economics (Sparks, 2000). The rise of tabloidization has raised concerns about declining standards in journalism (Sparks, 2000). For example, the coverage of Princess Diana’s death, blamed on the paparazzi that chased the car in which she rode, saw mainstream news organizations distancing themselves from tabloids that have patronized paparazzi photos (Bishop, 1999). This was boundary work in action: By ostracizing other agents, the mainstream media marked the boundaries of what they considered legitimate journalism (Bishop, 1999).

Boundary work is also a negotiation of journalistic identity, or the means through which journalists make meaning of their work and define who a journalist is (Deuze, 2005). For example, traditional news organizations problematized the journalistic identity of the hugely popular media site BuzzFeed after it began producing news, weighing whether its non-traditional practices, such as the listicle format it popularized and the native advertising business it pioneered, can be considered to be within the boundaries of legitimate journalism (Tandoc and Jenkins, 2017). A discussion of journalism’s boundaries, therefore, is primarily a discussion of identity markers. Thus, guided by the frameworks of boundary work and field theory, we ask,

RQ1. In the discourse triggered by the controversial Gawker article, how did (a) journalists and (b) audiences situate Gawker within the boundaries of journalism?

Audiences and journalism’s interpretive community

In this period of an “open media environment,” norms not only become “identity markers” for journalists but also “boundary markers between professionals and non-professionals” (Singer, 2015: 21). Norms are also the basis for the function of journalism as an interpretive community (Zelizer, 1992). The idea of journalism functioning as an interpretive community formally linked journalistic discourse to the idea of boundary work (Zelizer, 1992). An interpretive community is defined as “a cultural site where meanings are constructed, shared, and reconstructed by members of social groups in the course of everyday life” (Berkowitz and TerKeurst, 1999: 125). Not only do journalists construct and share meanings through the journalistic artifacts they write or produce, but they also engage in constant sense-making as they negotiate questions about their own norms, values, and ethics in day-to-day practice. This sense-making process is particularly important in periods of disruption (Carr, 2012), when journalistic practices and news values, and even the basic definition of journalism, are renegotiated. This process now increasingly occurs in front of the public, embedded in news narratives and routines (Bishop, 1999).

News audiences were previously excluded from this journalistic introspection (Bishop, 1999). Initial studies of journalism’s function as an interpretive community focused solely on the discourse of journalists (Zelizer, 1993). But now, enabled by new technologies such as social media, news audiences are increasingly taking part in negotiating journalism’s boundaries (Robinson, 2015; Robinson and DeShano, 2011; Singer and Ashman, 2009). For example, audiences routinely engage in media critique through blogs and online forums (Craft et al., 2015; Vos et al., 2011). Online readers use comment sections to evaluate and even question editorial decisions and journalistic performance (Tandoc and Jenkins, 2017). They also use traditional journalistic terms and norms in their critiques, demonstrating their ability to uphold or challenge the professional norms that mark the journalistic field, thereby becoming part of journalism’s expanding and evolving interpretive community (Robinson, 2015). This expanding interpretive community that also includes news audiences can be seen in Gawker’s rise in popularity, and how its audiences actively deliberated on the site’s controversial article. Guided by this focus on journalism’s expanding interpretive community, we also ask,

RQ2. What does the discourse generated by Gawker’s controversial article suggest about the audience’s place in journalism’s interpretive community?

Outing in journalism’s boundaries

Outing refers to the “involuntary public revelation of another’s sexual identity” (Hicks and Warren, 1998: 14). It usually occurs against the will of the person being outed (Chekola, 1994). Outing is “generally associated with revealing someone’s homosexuality in the media” (Chekola, 1994: 70). Therefore, outing is a term “invented by” and “dependent upon” the media (Hicks and Warren, 1998: 14). Numerous cases of high-profile outing by tabloids have been documented (Gross, 1991), but debates on the moral justification of outing persist (Gross, 1991; Hicks and Warren, 1998). Those who oppose outing cite homosexuals’ right to privacy, while those who consider outing as justified argue that keeping homosexuality a secret stunts the fight for gender equality (Gross, 1991). Others considered outing as a “prima facie wrong because it ordinarily violates a person’s right to privacy” (Mayo and Gunderson, 1994: 48), but others argued that “privacy does not apply” to information about sexual orientation because, for example, heterosexual relationship status is not considered private (Chekola, 1994: 80).

These debates spill over to journalism, and outing has long presented journalists with ethical quandaries (Hicks and Warren, 1998). Outing is usually associated with tabloids, which have been the subject of boundary work among mainstream news outlets. Tabloidization is considered the direct result of commercialization, mostly promoted by pressures of advertisers to reach large audiences and increased competition (Esser, 1999). Thus, tabloids’ treatment of homosexuality has received close scrutiny. Outings in the past have triggered journalistic controversy. For example, the outing of business mogul Malcolm Forbes after he died in 1990 caused a media frenzy among tabloids and talk shows, but it also triggered condemnation from gay journalists who considered the article a violation of privacy (Gross, 1991). Some considered outing public figures who had been vocal against gay rights or had spoken against homosexuality to highlight the irony as the only acceptable form of outing (Gross, 1991).

Outing has been mostly restricted to public figures, such as politicians and celebrities (Gross, 1991; Hicks and Warren, 1998). “The outing of private individuals is not condoned by any of even its most vocal proponents” (Hicks and Warren, 1998: 15). This concept is particularly worth considering in the context of the new media environment, as social shaming has also migrated online, through platforms such as social media and even online news (Ronson, 2015). Online shaming has blurred the lines between public and private and created power imbalances based on gender and other attributes (Salter, 2016). Gawker’s outing of the married Conde Nast executive includes another layer of debate, as journalists and readers considered him a private citizen, while Gawker considered him a public figure. Therefore, we also ask,

RQ3. How did (a) journalists and (b) audiences evaluate Gawker’s controversial article based on the ethical issues involved in the practice of outing?

Theoretical synthesis

Gawker’s foray into the journalistic field was spotlighted when it outed a Conde Nast executive in an article. Such outing provoked critical discussions over Gawker’s kind of journalism in particular and the practice of outing in the media in general, turning the event into a critical incident that focused attention on the ongoing boundary work in the field (Carlson, 2015; Zelizer, 1993). Gawker entered the journalistic field playing by the rules of tabloid journalism. In doing so, it participated in a continuing struggle over boundaries of acceptable journalistic practice (Carlson, 2015). Negotiations of journalism’s boundaries can be seen in how different news organizations reported about what Gawker did. But as new technologies enable audiences to take part in the interpretive work involved in making sense of journalistic norms and practices, reader comments about Gawker’s article also addressed boundary questions, thereby potentially forming part of the interpretive community. Investigating the discourse generated by this critical incident is important because it identifies where journalists and readers draw the boundaries of legitimate journalism, specifies the place of ethics in boundary discourse, and informs journalistic practice about the phenomenon of outing in the news.

Method

This study used textual analysis to examine both the journalistic discourse within journalists’ interpretive community through the news articles that the controversy generated and the discourse perpetuated by audiences through their online comments.

Sampling

We analyzed articles published by other news organizations between 17 July 2015 (the day after the article was published) and 17 September 2015. We searched the online database Factiva using the keywords “Gawker,” “Conde Nast,” and the name of the media executive (which we decided to withhold). We focused on mainstream news sources in the United States. This process yielded 65 articles appearing in 26 different newspapers, magazines, TV stations, and online news sources. We also analyzed the comments to the original article that sparked the controversy. The original article had been removed, but Gawker kept the link active and maintained the reader comments. The webpage had 2203 comments during the period of data collection. These comments were all included in the analysis, although comments that did not specifically address the article were disregarded in the second stage of coding.

Qualitative analysis

We used the constant comparative approach to qualitative data analysis (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). We also took an iterative strategy (Tracy, 2013). We conducted the analysis guided by sensitizing concepts from the literature and our research questions, but our approach also allowed codes to emerge inductively from the data.

The analysis followed two stages. In the primary-cycle coding stage, we first independently took an initial reading of the data before proceeding with line-by-line coding, with each new line compared with the previous one. This approach allowed us to code based on the sensitizing concepts specified in our research questions, such as the focus on identity markers, but it also allowed us to identify codes in vivo (Tracy, 2013). The first researcher coded the comments before the articles, while the second researcher coded the articles before the comments. Coding line by line is consistent with the process of fracturing or breaking down the data into smaller pieces (Tracy, 2013). In the secondary-cycle coding stage, we independently classified our codes into related conceptual bins, making sure that each research question was sufficiently addressed. This stage was marked by “classifying, prioritizing, integrating, synthesizing, abstracting, conceptualizing, and theory-building” (Saldaña, 2009: 45). For example, codes that referred to Gawker’s identity as a journalistic organization and codes that referred to the article’s newsworthiness were combined to address the first research question. Then, we compared the conceptual categories we independently developed. Following a series of discussions, we finalized the themes that emerged from the analysis and wrote narratives around them, drawing specific examples from the data.

Results

Boundary markers

The first research question focused on how journalists and audiences situated Gawker within journalism’s boundaries. Consistent with the framework of boundary work and field theory, the analysis focused on how Gawker was defined as a journalistic organization and on how the controversial article fitted into the markers of what defines news.

Who is a journalist?

Many news organizations emphasized Gawker’s focus on sensational news or gossip, calling the site a “controversial gossip blog” (Blackford, 2015), a “news and gossip site” (Mandaro, 2015), and an organization that treads the “line between news and gossip” (Weissman, 2015b) News organizations also compared Gawker with other heavily trafficked publications whose journalistic credentials have been debated, such as the New York Post (Moses, 2015), BuzzFeed (Castillo, 2015), and Reddit (Greenberg, 2015). Comparing Gawker with these organizations suggests that it blends the subject matter and approach of traditional tabloids with the “clickbait” emphasis of these news sites. These comparisons also suggested that the reaction to Gawker might signify broader shifts in the online media environment, with the growth of niche sites triggering reconsiderations of news values and the acceptability of publishing certain types of information. This concern was evident in the Washington Post’s suggestion that Gawker merely posts “dirty laundry on well-trafficked URLs” (Wemple, 2015) and draws enhanced traffic as a result of its own controversies.

Embedded in this widespread condemnation is the recognition of Gawker’s increasingly prominent and important place in the journalistic field. Some news articles regarded Gawker as a new force in online journalism, with the Business Insider regarding it as a “pioneer of the new breed of online publications” that challenged established media for “scoops and readers” (Weissman, 2015a). Other news organizations considered Gawker’s evolution as a media company as well as the shifts in its editorial culture. Gawker was praised for its editorial autonomy, transparency, and fearlessness in exposing information, regardless of consequences (Weissman, 2015a) as well as for its emphasis on truth above all other news values (Byers, 2015). These comments suggested that with this growth and recognition came a responsibility for Gawker to adopt more traditional journalistic standards.

Commenters also struggled to develop a consistent definition of Gawker as an organization, revealing the complexities associated with labeling a media organization as “journalistic.” Their descriptions ranged from defining Gawker as a “news site,” aligning it with other players in the field already deemed as practicing journalism, to a “gossip tabloid,” diminishing its status. “I’m happy to tolerate Gawker’s embarrassing pretenses at real journalism,” one reader said. “But this kind of vicious, hateful ‘reporting’ makes me never want to visit this site again.” Other commenters focused specifically on Jordan Sargent, whose byline appeared with the story, suggesting that in reporting the story, he compromised his position as a legitimate agent in the profession. One commenter wrote, “Jordan isn’t a journalist and what he does isn’t journalism.” Another commenter addressed his post to Sargent, saying, “You need to resign and get a job w/TMZ … Perez Hilton may need an intern, you would be appropriate there!”

Comparisons with other media sites focused on celebrities or gossip were common, signaling audiences’ recognition of journalism’s boundaries, branding sites such as TMZ and Perez Hilton as clearly outside these boundaries and situated at the bottom of a hierarchy. Commenters also compared Gawker to other media organizations whose content and approaches relegated them to positions outside journalism’s boundaries. “I’ve been a Gawker reader for many years and have never been so disgusted by a piece,” someone wrote. “I cannot even imagine Fox News, Daily Mail, or Perez Hilton ever publishing something as utterly cruel and stupid as this.”

Similar to what some journalists said, other commenters also recognized Gawker’s increasingly important place in journalism. One commenter said Gawker was “too important a voice in the media to traffic this shit.” Other commenters noted that Gawker had presented itself as a progressive site, championing a liberal stance on many social issues. But they noted that this article contradicted that stance. “This is literally the most hypocritical website on the fucking Internet,” a commenter said. “You dumbass liberals want equality for all the gays and transgenders of the world, but you pull this shit.” This comment did not recognize the controversial article as an expected byproduct of Gawker’s approaches to newsworthiness but as an error in judgment from an otherwise recognized media outlet.

What constitutes news?

News organizations also considered whether the story itself represented a legitimate news event, focusing specifically on whether a person’s sexual identity was newsworthy. The Washington Post said the article “revived an ongoing, and unresolved, debate about when it counts as news that someone is gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender—and even when it is, whether it’s worth it to publish” (Rosenberg, 2015). The Hollywood Reporter vilified the piece, referencing Gawker’s “bilious, homophobic piece” and noting that no level of public interest could justify printing the story (Wolff, 2015). New York magazine offered a broader take on these questions, considering the phenomenon of news organizations making the act of infidelity itself newsworthy and comparing sites like Gawker to a “self-righteous mob” that participates in prosecuting sources for betraying their marriage vows and therefore “becoming the least likely defenders of the sanctity of marriage ever known” (Havrilesky, 2015). Variety argued that although American news organizations have focused on “afflicting the comfortable” as a key journalistic tenet, the Gawker article “takes that notion to a ridiculous extreme” (Wallenstein, 2015).

News organizations also drew attention to the internal dissent that erupted within Gawker about changing understandings of newsworthiness and the functions that Gawker serves. Some articles suggested that within Gawker, the truth of a statement outweighs any other news value, justifying the publication of highly personal information (Rothstein, 2015). The Washington Post suggested that the article, in featuring shadowy encounters, a high-ranking official, and possible criminal activity, mirrored classic Gawker news values (Wemple, 2015). However, other publications argued that the fact that a source is powerful and affluent does not alone justify revealing private information about the individual, particularly when that source “is not a government official; he is not running for office; he does not have a record of hypocrisy on gay issues” (Soave, 2015). News organizations also questioned whether other factors, such as drawing clicks, motivated Gawker’s decision. The Conversation called the article “clickbait,” suggesting it was a “deliberate and potentially devastating intrusion” (Blackford, 2015). While seeking truth has long been considered a key news value—and, indeed, journalism’s first obligation (Kovach and Rosenstiel, 2007)—many news organizations suggested that truth alone does not automatically merit publication.

Many commenters disregarded the information as news at all, using traditional news values, such as prominence, to justify their claims and contrasting the information with gossip. “This isn’t news—it’s gossip,” one commenter said. Some commenters suggested they have followed Gawker for years and have come to expect a certain type of content: “I’ve been reading this network for the better part of a decade now and this is one of the grimiest lows I’ve seen here.” These commenters suggested that they understand Gawker’s mission and are entertained by its articles, such as its Blind Items, but this article was vindictive. So what did the commenters consider as newsworthy? Some commenters referred to the news value of prominence. For example, one commenter said the Conde Nast executive was “a private citizen with no government or public position whatsoever.” The media executive’s brother was once a member of President Obama’s cabinet, but readers pointed out that the brother was no longer an active public servant.

References to public interest as an important news element were also common. One commenter wrote, “Did you ask yourself where the public interest is in this article? This isn’t a news story. This is a ruin-a-family’s-life story.” Similarly, other commenters questioned the impact of the story on the public. Someone asked, “How is this news? How does this affect me? It does not.” Others dismissed the article as motivated solely by increasing traffic, with one commenter describing the article as “a ridiculous attempt at sensationalizing something for clicks.” Another commenter considered the article as outrageous and categorized it as “outragebait.” In doing so, commenters contributed to journalism’s interpretive community by considering the democratic function of the news and critiquing whether Gawker’s story fulfilled a journalistic role. They determined that the motivation for the article fulfilled Gawker’s needs more than the needs of the public, and the information was not useful for their lives, diminishing its value and relegating it outside the boundaries of legitimate practice.

A larger interpretive community

The second research question asked about the role of the audience in journalism’s interpretive community, considering the growing literature on the increasing role of audiences in negotiating journalism’s boundaries. The importance of the audience was evident in Gawker’s decision to remove the original story but keep the comments, salvaging the public’s response as evidence of their investment in the debate.

The analysis also found what could be described as a meta-discourse among commenters about the interpretive community activated by the controversy. First, some Gawker readers clearly identified their roles as consumers of content, arguing that although Gawker is known for patronizing its readers by giving in to their preferences, this article did not meet those preferences. For example, one commenter left a short post, saying, “I think you’ve misjudged your readers.” Comments such as this represent some form of meta-discourse, of audiences recognizing the normative influence they should exert on editorial decisions. Second, many commenters commented about the widespread agreement among them. A few comments defended the article, such as one comment that said the executive “put his position in jeopardy when he decided to go outside of his marriage and seek out a sex worker.” But in pages after pages of comments analyzed in this study, the overwhelming sentiment was that Gawker crossed the line. One commenter, worried about homophobia, said she scouted the comments section. “But it’s literally pages and pages of 100% anti-Jordan and anti-escort comments. Good job, everybody.”

The consensus on the outrage among readers also caught the attention of the journalistic community. News articles included references to public reactions to the Gawker article, including commentary from celebrities and journalists. For example, AdWeek cited tweets from journalist and lawyer Glenn Greenwald and actress-director Lena Dunham panning the article (Baysinger, 2015). Greenwald called it “reprehensible beyond belief,” while Dunham referenced Gawker’s history of “cruel and unnecessary stories.” The journalistic community recognized that the public outcry over the article was universally negative. Through these articles, journalists addressed and recognized the public sense-making process that arose in response to the article. In doing so, they also acknowledged and legitimized the important role of audiences not only in journalism’s interpretive community but also in the ongoing negotiations about journalism’s boundaries.

The ethics of outing

The third research question focused on how audiences and journalists evaluated Gawker’s article against the ethical standards involved in the practice of outing, arguing that a focus on ethics is becoming an important boundary marker in the journalistic field. Indeed, conversations about the article demonstrated the key role that journalism ethics play in reinforcing the boundaries of journalistic practice for organizations and individuals.

Several news organizations quoted a statement from Denton, Gawker’s publisher, saying he was “ashamed” to have his name and Gawker’s name associated with a story on the “private life of a closeted gay man who some had felt had done nothing to warrant the attention” (Hayden, 2015). Other news articles hinted at ethical issues surrounding the decision to publish the article, such as Gawker aiding the sex worker in exploiting the executive and Gawker’s role in outing him. However, the journalistic community in general seemed hesitant to explicitly call out specific ethical pitfalls. Those who did relied only on statements from Denton himself or cited perspectives from other journalists or media ethics experts. Therefore, although these journalists recognized that a journalistic breach had occurred, they were hesitant to take a firm stance on the specific nature of the mistake and how it should be rectified.

In contrast, many commenters took a willing place in the interpretive response to the incident, explicitly condemning the article as unethical and using different standards in claiming so. Commenters also discussed the ethical decision-making process at Gawker and argued for more verification and transparency in reporting, thereby situating Gawker as a recognized news purveyor. First, some commenters argued that the article relied on the account of the sex worker and granted him anonymity, without any concrete proof. Some pointed out that the executive’s phone numbers and addresses could be accessed publicly and it was easy to make the story up.

Second, some commenters argued that outing the executive was not justified. They said he was a private person and what he attempted to do was between him and his wife. Some Gawker editors defended the article as outing a person because of his infidelity, but some commenters raised the possibility that perhaps he was in an open relationship or that his wife might have known about his sexuality. One commenter said, “The idea that it’s okay to report on anyone’s private sexual life is appalling.” Commenters also suggested that the staff members at Gawker should hold themselves to the same standards they hold their sources, implying that publishing the story represented a form of media moralizing. One commenter said,

I’m surprised that the nudes of Denton are still floating about—perhaps Gawker will publish those as well to prove just how much they support transparency in journalism. Hell, maybe all Gawker employees will be publishing their own naughty chats and bullshit ways of getting laid.

Third, a significant number of comments specifically problematized the ethics of outing. Some said that outing was justified only when it involves a public figure: “Who cares if x guy is secretly gay? He’s not a public figure, he’s not a politician, so why are you outing this man?” Others said outing a public figure is justified only if that public figure had spoken or acted against the gay movement: “If this was a right-wing political blowhard hypocrite, then yes, that is news and deserves to be publicly shamed.” But many commenters said the Conde Nast executive was neither a politician nor an anti-gay hypocrite.

Fourth, the commenters questioned why the article named the Conde Nast executive but kept the identity of the gay escort secret: “One of the grossest things about this bullshit is Gawker outing the victim yet protecting the blackmailer’s identity.” Others said Gawker became complicit in blackmailing the executive: “So a small-time scam artist abused a private individual, attempted blackmail in outing them in regard for favours, and then choose to disclose this story, likely for a profit.” Some commenters also highlighted how the media executive was consistently polite in his text messages, in contrast with the gay escort, who had posted angry statements and conspiracy theories in his social media account ultimately traced by some readers. Others also pointed out that the media executive did the ethical thing by refusing to use his brother’s political connections to give into the gay escort’s demand, and that while he canceled the meeting, he still paid the gay escort in full. The commenters contrasted what they considered as the executive’s acceptable behavior with the gay escort’s blackmailing—and Gawker becoming a willing accomplice.

Fifth, some readers pointed out that Conde Nast owns the online forum Reddit, a perceived competitor of Gawker, and Gawker itself had uploaded in the past several articles critical of Reddit. These comments hinted at a conflict of interest in Gawker outing an executive linked to a competing website. A commenter said, “This is completely and entirely about trying to shame a man just because he works for Conde Nast, who owns Reddit, and Gawker has a vendetta against Reddit.” This comment shows a high level of awareness among some readers of the online media industry and its players. A few news articles also hinted at this. For example, Mediaite, quoting journalist Glenn Greenwald, suggested that Gawker’s “ongoing war with Reddit” drove the reporting (Kirell, 2015). These comments suggested that rather than ethical or journalistic considerations driving the publication of the article, Gawker was motivated by competition.

Discussion and conclusion

This study sought to understand the ways journalists and audiences made sense of the controversial Gawker article that outed a media executive who allegedly sought the services of a gay escort. Through the frameworks of boundary work and field theory and the concept of journalism as an interpretive community, this study found that during this critical incident, journalists and audiences problematized Gawker’s identity as a journalistic organization and evaluated the article based on traditional standards of newsworthiness; audiences asserted their role in journalism’s larger interpretive community, which was also recognized by journalists; and that the larger interpretive community assessed the article based on the ethics of outing, with audiences more explicitly than journalists calling out an ethical transgression.

This critical incident spotlighted Gawker as a new agent within the journalistic field. New agents usually go through a process of legitimation, as old agents try to distinguish themselves from new players (Bourdieu, 1998, 2005; Tandoc and Jenkins, 2017). Gawker attracts substantial economic capital, measured by the number of readers it reaches, which many traditional news organizations are losing. Thus, news organizations seemed to have recognized Gawker as a new force in the field, yet many of them also relegated Gawker to tabloid journalism, perceived by mainstream agents as residing on the field’s sidelines (Sparks, 2000). Thus, Gawker finds itself caught in ongoing boundary work within the field: first, as a new agent by virtue of its online nature and second, as a new agent de-differentiating itself by subscribing to the logic of tabloid journalism (Sparks, 2000).

Online readers also recognized Gawker’s entry into the journalistic field as they referred to its attempts at journalism. Critiques of Gawker and the controversial article rest largely on acknowledgment of Gawker’s entry to journalism, as online commenters imposed expectations associated with traditional journalism. This is most evident in discussions about the article’s newsworthiness. Online commenters used the news values of public interest, impact, prominence, and truth in arguing that the article was about something that did not meet the threshold of being newsworthy. In doing so, online commenters within Gawker’s own website demonstrated their expectations that Gawker should behave as an agent of journalism.

Such expectations for Gawker to behave as a journalist centered on ethical practice. This is consistent with the argument that as journalism faces challenges on multiple fronts—on its identity, routines, and financial stability—its norms become its most important boundary markers (Singer, 2007). Questions of journalism ethics become salient in the practice of outing. Some news organizations hinted at the ethics of outing by quoting celebrities and Gawker officials who raised such questions about the article. But online readers were more explicit. Commenters offered their opinions on what constitutes justified outing. They argued that only closeted public figures, particularly politicians, who express anti-gay sentiments and engage in anti-gay policies, should be outed. Otherwise, they argued that being gay is private and should not be the business of news. These comments echo arguments documented in the literature about outing in the media (Chekola, 1994; Hicks and Warren, 1998; Mayo and Gunderson, 1994) and concerns about online shaming (Ronson, 2015; Salter, 2016). They argued that by outing the media executive, whom they considered a private individual, Gawker transgressed the boundaries of ethical journalism.

It is noteworthy that reader comments were more explicit than news articles in pointing out what audiences thought were ethical violations committed by Gawker. Some news opinion pieces addressed the article’s ethical breaches but did not explicitly call them out as unethical. The news articles that touched on ethical questions relied on quotes from other sources. It is plausible that journalists, bound by their objectivity norm as well as by their acknowledgment that Gawker is also part of the journalistic community, exercised more caution in pointing out ethical transgressions in the publication of the article. Their condemnation was implied by the range of perspectives they quoted in their articles, discussing the article in terms of newsworthiness, as well as by their reportage of the almost universal outrage the article sparked among online readers. In contrast, commenters, not bound by the need to appear objective and bolstered by their belief in the audience’s influence on news production, provided impassioned but also rational criticisms of journalistic practice. The comments analyzed in this study showed that audiences are increasingly taking part in journalism’s boundary work, asserting their way into journalism’s once-exclusive interpretive community. Many comments analyzed in this study used standards and even lexicon usually employed by journalists themselves (Craft et al., 2015; Robinson, 2015). This recognition of audiences’ increasingly important role in journalism’s interpretive community is also demonstrated by Gawker’s decision to remove the much-maligned article but keep the readers’ comments online.

The results of this analysis should be interpreted in the context of several limitations. First, we only analyzed comments posted on the webpage of the original article, and although we reviewed each of the comments, other online readers might have discussed the incident on other platforms. Second, although we analyzed the discussions within the journalistic community as carried out in published news articles, considering that much of journalists’ interpretive work occurs routinely in public (Bishop, 1999), it is plausible that some discussions among journalists about the incident occurred outside their news outputs. Therefore, the results presented here speak only to the public discourses around the incident.

Still, we hope that by focusing on these public discussions around a critical incident in journalism, we have contributed to the growing understanding of the boundary work unfolding in journalism as new agents, such as Gawker, enter the field. The case analyzed here demonstrated how a new agent positions itself in an ongoing boundary negotiation involving tabloid journalism. It also demonstrated how such negotiations are no longer confined to journalists, as audiences now form part of journalism’s interpretive community. A journalism that claims to serve the public should, therefore, listen to the perspectives of an increasingly involved audience. Future studies should also explore the role of journalists in an emerging pattern of social shaming, especially online, and whether such practice is what audiences really want. Finally, the results of this study should remind journalists of the ethics surrounding the phenomenon of outing, as well as ethical practice in general, as this becomes more important as journalism’s boundaries face numerous challenges. In a period when many traditional routines and conventions in journalism are being challenged, journalism ethics becomes an increasingly important boundary marker, not only among journalists but also among audiences participating in journalism’s expanding interpretive community. In outing a media executive, Gawker also outed lingering tensions in journalism.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Edson C Tandoc Jr (PhD, University of Missouri) is an assistant professor at the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information at the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. His research focuses on the sociology of message construction. He has conducted studies on the construction of news and social media messages. Prior to his graduate studies, he worked as a journalist in the Philippines for 6 years.

Joy Jenkins is a PhD candidate in journalism at the University of Missouri School of Journalism. Her research focuses on studying shifts in the media environment from a sociology-of-news perspective, including the changing roles of editors in newsrooms; the potential of news organizations to spur social change, particularly in urban contexts; and the evolution of magazine journalism.

References

Arana

(2015) Gawker’s outing of Condé Nast’s CFO is gay-shaming, not journalism. The Huffington Post. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gawker-conde-nast-david-geithner_55a90c56e4b0c5f0322d0b2c (accessed 30 September 2015).

Baysinger

(2015) Gawker removes gossip item that outed Conde Nast CFO. Adweek. Available at: http://www.adweek.com/news/press/gawker-removes-gossip-item-outed-cond-nast-cfo-165954 (accessed 25 September 2015).

Benson

Neveu

(eds) (2005) Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Berkowitz

TerKeurst

(1999) Community as interpretive community: rethinking the journalist-source relationship. Journal of Communication 49(3): 125–136.

Bishop

(1999) From behind the walls: boundary work by news organizations in their coverage of Princess Diana’s death. Journal of Communication Inquiry 23(1): 90–112.

Blackford

(2015) Gawker’s gutter journalism—and worries about freedom of speech. The Conversation. Available at: http://theconversation.com/gawkers-gutter-journalism-and-worries-about-freedom-of-speech-44839 (accessed 25 September 2015).

Bourdieu

(1998) On Television. New York: The New Press.

Bourdieu

(2005) The political field, the social science field and the journalistic field. In: Benson

Neveu

(eds) Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field. Malden, MA: Polity Press, pp. 29–47.

Byers

(2015) Gawker removes controversial post, despite protest from executive editor. Politico. Available at: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/07/gawker-removes-controversial-post-despite-protest-from-executive-editor-210785 (accessed 30 September 2015).

10.

Carlson

(2015) Introduction: the many boundaries of journalism. In: Carlson

Lewis

(eds) Boundaries of Journalism: Professionalism, Practices, and Participation (Shaping Inquiry in Culture, Communication, and Media). New York: Routledge, pp. 1–18.

11.

Carr

(2012) The end of “disruption.” Nieman Journalism Lab. Available at: http://www.niemanlab.org/2012/12/the-end-of-disruption/ (accessed 16 September 2015).

12.

Castillo

(2015) Is Gawker’s story removal setting a dangerous precedent? CNBC. Available at: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/18/is-gawkers-story-removal-setting-a-dangerous-precedent.html (accessed 25 September 2015).

13.

Chekola

(1994) Outing, truth-telling, and the shame of the closet. Journal of Homosexuality 27(3–4): 67–90.

14.

Craft

Vos

Wolfgang

(2015) Reader comments as press criticism: implications for the journalistic field. Journalism 17: 677–693.

15.

Denton

(2015) Taking a post down. Gawker. Available: http://nick.kinja.com/taking-a-post-down-1718581684 (accessed 30 September 2015).

16.

Deuze

(2005) Popular journalism and professional ideology: tabloid reporters and editors speak out. Media, Culture & Society 27(6): 861–882.

17.

Esser

(1999) “Tabloidization” of news: a comparative analysis of Anglo-American and German press journalism. European Journal of Communication 14(3): 291–324.

18.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

19.

Greenberg

(2015) Gawker pulls post as new media enters midlife crisis mode. Wired. Available at: http://www.wired.com/2015/07/gawker-pulls-post-new-media-enters-midlife-crisis-mode/ (accessed 25 September 2015).

20.

Gross

(1991) The contested closet: the ethics and politics of outing. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 8(3): 352–388.

21.

Havrilesky

(2015) Are broken marriage vows grounds for blowing up someone’s life? New York Magazine. Available at: http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/cheaters-deserve-to-have-their-lives-ruined.html (accessed 25 September 2015).

22.

Hayden

(2015) Gawker editor-in-chief resigns after controversial post gets take down. The Hollywood Reporter. Available at: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gawker-editor-chief-resigns-controversial-809813 (accessed 25 September 2015).

23.

Hicks

Warren

(1998) Whose benefit? Gay and lesbian journalists discuss outing, the individual, and the community. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 13(1): 14–25.

24.

Kirell

(2015) Gawker staff issues statement criticizing “business side” for deleting outing post. Mediaite. Available at: http://www.mediaite.com/online/gawker-staff-issues-statement-criticizing-business-side-for-deleting-outing-post/ (accessed 25 September 2015).

25.

Kovach

Rosenstiel

(2007) The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect. 1st rev. ed. New York: Three Rivers Press.

26.

Lewis

(2015) Epilogue: studying the boundaries of journalism: where do we go from here? In: Carlson

Lewis

(eds) Boundaries of Journalism: Professionalism, Practices, and Participation (Shaping Inquiry in Culture, Communication, and Media). New York: Routledge, pp. 218–228.

27.

Madigan

Somaiya

(2016) Hulk Hogan awarded $115 million in privacy suit against Gawker. The New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/business/media/gawker-hulk-hogan-verdict.html?_r=0 (accessed 20 March 2016).

28.

Mahler

(2015) Gawker’s moment of truth. The New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/business/media/gawker-nick-denton-moment-of-truth.html?_r=1 (accessed 16 September 2015).

29.

Mandaro

(2015) Gawker apologizes, removes article on CFO. USA Today. Available at: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/17/gawkers-apparent-outing-cfo-meets-internet-backlash/30280505/ (accessed 25 September 2015).

30.

Mayo

Gunderson

(1994) Privacy and the ethics of outing. Journal of Homosexuality 27(3–4): 47–65.

31.

Moses

(2015) Advertisers shrugged: when Gawker crosses an ethical line, business won’t take a hit. Digiday. Available at: http://digiday.com/publishers/gawker-crosses-ethical-line-advertisers-shrug/ (accessed 25 September 2015).

32.

Robinson

(2015) Redrawing borders from within: commenting on news stories as boundary work. In: Carlson

Lewis

(eds) Boundaries of Journalism: Professionalism, Practices, and Participation (Shaping Inquiry in Culture, Communication, and Media). New York: Routledge, pp. 152–168.

33.

Robinson

DeShano

(2011) “Anyone can know”: citizen journalism and the interpretive community of the mainstream press. Journalism 12(8): 963–982.

34.

Ronson

(2015) So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed. London: Pan Macmillan, 304 pp.

35.

Rosenberg

(2015) Gawker, Grantland and when our personal lives go public. The Washington Post. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2015/07/21/gawker-grantland-and-when-our-personal-lives-go-public/ (accessed 25 September 2015).

36.

Rothstein

(2015) Gawker media staff blast removal of gay porn star story. Daily Caller. Available at: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/gawker-media-staff-blast-removal-of-gay-porn-star-story/ (accessed 25 September 2015).

37.

Roy

(2015) Gawker slammed for story outing Condé Nast exec. New York Magazine. Available at: http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/gawker-slammed-for-story-outing-conde-nast-exec.html (accessed 30 September 2015).

38.

Saldaña

(2009) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

39.

Salter

(2016) Privates in the online public: sex(ting) and reputation on social media. New Media & Society 18(11): 2723–2739.

40.

Sargent

(2015) Condé Nast’s CFO tried to pay $2,500 for a night with a gay porn star. Gawker. Available at: http://gawker.com/conde-nasts-cfo-tried-to-pay-2-500-for-a-night-with-a-1718364339 (accessed 17 July 2015).

41.

Schudson

Anderson

(2009) Objectivity, professionalism, and truth seeking in journalism. In: Wahl-Jorgensen

Hanitzsch

(eds) The Handbook of Journalism Studies. New York: Routledge, pp. 88–101.

42.

Singer

(2007) Contested autonomy: professional and popular claims on journalistic norms. Journalism Studies 8(1): 79–95.

43.

Singer

(2015) Out of bounds: professional norms as boundary markers. In: Carlson

Lewis

(eds) Boundaries of Journalism: Professionalism, Practices, and Participation (Shaping Inquiry in Culture, Communication, and Media). New York: Routledge, pp. 21–26.

44.

Singer

Ashman

(2009) “Comment is free, but facts are sacred”: user-generated content and ethical constructs at the guardian. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 24(1): 3–21.

45.

Soave

(2015) Gawker helps gay escort blackmail timothy Geithner’s brother, Ted Cruz is the hero of the story. Hit & Run. Available at: https://reason.com/blog/2015/07/17/gawker-helps-gay-escort-blackmail-timoth (accessed 25 September 2015).

46.

Sparks

(2000) Introduction: the panic over tabloid news. In: Sparks

Tulloch

(eds) Tabloid Tales. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., pp. 1–40.

47.

Tandoc

Jenkins

(2017) The buzzfeedication of journalism? How traditional news organizations are talking about a new entrant to the journalistic field will surprise you! Journalism 18(4): 482–500.

48.

Tracy

(2013) Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

49.

Trotter

(2015) Gawker is removing story about Conde Nast CEO. Gawker. Available at: http://gawker.com/gawker-is-removing-story-about-conde-nast-cfo-1718582003 (accessed 30 September 2015).

50.

Uberti

(2014) In a tabloidized world, tabloids struggle. Columbia Journalism Review. Available at: http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/in_a_tabloidized_world_tabloid.php (accessed 31 October 2015).

51.

Vos

Craft

Ashley

(2011) New media, old criticism: “bloggers” press criticism and the journalistic field. Journalism 13(7): 850–868.

52.

Wallenstein

(2015) Gawker gaffe reveals a brand at war with itself. Variety. Available at: http://variety.com/2015/biz/opinion/gawker-nick-denton-conde-nast-journalism-1201543720/ (accessed 25 September 2015).

53.

Weissman

(2015a) 2 of Gawker’s top editors just resigned after a controversial post was removed. Business Insider. Available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/two-of-gawkers-top-editors-resigned-2015-7 (accessed 25 September 2015).

54.

Weissman

(2015b) Gawker employees vehemently disagree with management’s decision to take down a controversial post. Business Insider. Available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/gawker-nixes-post-taking-aim-at-cond-nast-cfo-2015-7 (accessed 25 September 2015).

55.

Wemple

(2015) Gawker does the right thing: erases piece on Conde Nast executive. The Washington Post. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/07/17/gawker-does-the-right-thing-erases-piece-on-conde-nast-executive/ (accessed 30 September 2015).

56.

Wolff

(2015) Michael Wolff reveals Gawker boss nick Denton’s private thoughts on oversight and morals. Hollywood Reporter. Available at: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/michael-wolff-reveals-gawker-boss-809597 (accessed 30 September 2015).

57.

Zelizer

(1992) CNN, the gulf war, and journalistic practice. Journal of Communication 42(1): 66–81.

58.

Zelizer

(1993) Journalists as interpretive communities. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 10(3): 219–237.