liberal? gq has its own kind of editorial ethos in some sites and other magazines have their own editorial ethos, and i think you have to take that into consideration when you look at that. you could look at any number of what you would consider to be that they would not have done - the same thing to someone who did not agree with them on policy. what i do believe, however, is that one of the things that is pointed out in that particular article, which is even a little bit more insensitive to me or a little bit more disturbing than even carson saying, you know, i wouldn t have just stood around and let somebody shoot me and then chuckling after the fact was him saying that he was actually in a situation where he was in what he calls a popeye organization i don t know what that means unless he was at the headquarters and he said somebody put a gun in his rib, and instead of him charging or anything at that point, he says
i am the guardian of the editorial ethos of the company. this is counter to what i want us to be doing. therefore, i had it taken down. gawker sort of has this reputation as being a place where anything goes. if it s true you publish it. here is part of the interview about hulk hogan. knowing what you know now, knowing all the legal costs already, would you have still published the video? i m glad the decisions that taken on publishing taken at the time and i m glad that we only really look at whether the story is both true and interesting. this story was true and interesting and we d absolutely publish it again in a heartbeat. this was a sex tape involving hulk hogan, now he s suing. we can get into the lawsuit. what you said is what we look at is whether the story is true and interesting. is that still true? i think the difference between tony craggs the