Jump to content

escort outs Conde Nast's CFO...

Tom Isern

By + Tom Isern
in The Lounge

This topic is 3214 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

josh282282 Community Regular

josh282282

Posted
Posted
Seems to me that this is only a problem if you feel being gay is still something to be ashamed about. They do this to politicians all the time. Eliot Spitzer, Anthony Weiner, etc and no one boycotts the media.

 

Doesn't seem that way to me at all. I'm TOTALLY out of the closet (for decades) and have NO SHAME at all for being Gay. Matter of fact, I think it's a blessing. What I am appalled at is a an escort (who makes a living off Gay men) and a journalist (who should know better) colluding to out a private family's business on the most intimate part of their lives: their bedroom. It is harmful, merciless, needless and provides no redeeming contribution to society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply
caliguy Veteran

caliguy

Posted
Posted
Here's an article about the "escort" in question, and comments he made in a phone interview:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/exclusive-interview-with-the-gay-porn-star-behind-that-terrible-gawker-article/

 

I know some of yall are uneasy on this subject, but this is another reason why I believe in having more protection than a trojan.

Wow. This guy is fucking nuts. This is nothing but extortion and revenge for not helping him out with an eviction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
caliguy Veteran

caliguy

Posted
Posted
Doesn't seem that way to me at all. I'm TOTALLY out of the closet (for decades) and have NO SHAME at all for being Gay. Matter of fact, I think it's a blessing. What I am appalled at is a an escort (who makes a living off Gay men) and a journalist (who should know better) colluding to out a private family's business on the most intimate part of their lives: their bedroom. It is harmful, merciless, needless and provides no redeeming contribution to society.

After reading the USAtoday article and the readers responses I see your point.

 

Readers pointed out that publicizing Geithner's possible sexual orientation did nothing for the public good: he's not a public official or political candidate who has advocated against gay rights, for instance.

 

"This guy is not an antigay politician whose hypocrisy needs to be outed. Why would anyone care if he wants to hire an escort?" wrote reader Mike Johnson of Los Angeles on Gawker's Facebook page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VeryHappyCustomer Community Regular

+ VeryHappyCustomer

Posted
Posted
OK boys, let's act on our collective indignation at Gawker for printing such a wretched and merciless family harming article. Contact the ADVERTIZERS and strongly urge them to to STOP advertising on Gawker.

 

Here is a link to the list of the advertisers with contact information. And yes, I have already contacted some and verbalized my request.

http://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php?title=Projects:Operation_Disrespectful_Nod/Advertisers#Gawker

 

Done!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mike carey Grand Master

mike carey

Posted
Posted

Gawker's motto is "Today's gossip is tomorrow's news".

 

I suspect that when Gawker adopted this motto they rather thought that they would catapault gossip into the actual news. I don't think they anticipated that by publishing something, they would become the subject of censorious commentary themselves rather than see the salacious titbit they had published atop the next day's news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
josh282282 Community Regular

josh282282

Posted
Posted

I figured this whole drama out, well at least partially. People are saying how "batshit crazy" this guy is, and to be sure, he is quite ill. But at first I couldnt make sense of it. If one watches his videos of himself ranting on and on about Obama and Putin and this crazy conspircy theory after another, one can see how this guy has serious mental health problems. Here is a link to his FB page:

https://www.facebook.com/sexyderek2720

 

Well, it comes together for me now. Leif Derek Truitt has "Delusional Disorder". It explains why Leif can sound/look so, well, normal at times.

Here is a description from WedMD on Delusional Disorder:

 

Delusional disorder, previously called paranoid disorder, is a type of serious mental illness called a "psychosis" in which a person cannot tell what is real from what is imagined. The main feature of this disorder is the presence of delusions, which are unshakable beliefs in something untrue. People with delusional disorder experience non-bizarre delusions, which involve situations that could occur in real life, such as being followed, poisoned, deceived, conspired against, or loved from a distance. These delusions usually involve the misinterpretation of perceptions or experiences. In reality, however, the situations are either not true at all or highly exaggerated.

 

People with delusional disorder often can continue to socialize and function normally, apart from the subject of their delusion, and generally do not behave in an obviously odd or bizarre manner. This is unlike people with other psychotic disorders, who also might have delusions as a symptom of their disorder. In some cases, however, people with delusional disorder might become so preoccupied with their delusions that their lives are disrupted.

 

Although delusions might be a symptom of more common disorders, such as schizophrenia, delusional disorder itself is rather rare. Delusional disorder most often occurs in middle to late life and is slightly more common in women than in men.

This explains why he can at times seem so normal except when talking bout or exhibiting his delusions. His FB page is a great example of the inner workings of his mind. This is a serious mental illness guys. This is why he was able to speak to the Gawker journalist and persuade him of his story. He probably did have an encounter via text messages and phone calls with the Conde Nast CFO. Therefore, he can probably be quite lucid in that conversation with the Gawker journalist. It's only when you get him going on his theories (his delusions) that his mental illness comes out.

 

Did I explain it well?

 

This guy needs a psychiatrist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boink Experienced

Boink

Posted
Posted
Which brings up an interesting point: there's noting under the reviews for him. Unless one is sophisticated/diligent enough to enter the forum and search for his name, we offer no word of warning.

 

Kevin Slater

 

I thought of this, too. I knew that I had read nothing but bad things about BRODIE SINCLAIR, but only when I searched for a review did I realize he had none. I just assume it's because so few people on these boards are dumb enough (or rich enough) to pay his ridiculous rates in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tonyko Proficient

Tonyko

Posted
Posted

David Geithner, meet Richard Hatch!

OMG I got SO excited for a sec since HE was the first dude I remember making my little dick feel kinda' funny when I was a kid!

THEN I of course realized there are TWO Richard Hatch's lol!!!

http://s4.postimg.org/dmmglet2l/Richard_Hatch.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
josh282282 Community Regular

josh282282

Posted
Posted
What's the point? Once something like this is out there, it's out there? Seems rather dishonest of them to pretend they've had a change of heart now that the damage has been done.

 

One can read the full Hollywood Reporter article by the link provided a few posts above where it is discussed in depth the point of the retraction. But in the article Denton, the Gawker editor writes the reason for the change of heart. If real, I see progress in Journalism, which we can be atributed to ourselves on this forum and the many thousands of others who verbalized their extreme displeasure at such horrid reporting on other news sites. Congratulations to us all.

Yesterday evening, Gawker.com published a story about the CFO of Conde Nast texting an escort. It was an editorial call, a close call around which there were more internal disagreements than usual. And it is a decision I regret.

 

The story involves extortion, illegality and reckless behavior, sufficient justification at least in tabloid news terms. The account was true and well-reported. It concerns a senior business executive at one of the most powerful media companies on the planet.

 

In the early days of the internet, that would have been enough. “We put truths on the internet.” That has been the longstanding position of Gawker journalists, some of the most uncompromising and uncompromised on the internet. I cannot blame our editors and writers for pursuing that original mission.

 

But the media environment has changed, our readers have changed, and I have changed. Not only is criticism of yesterday’s piece from readers intense, but much of what they’ve said has resonated. Some of our own writers, proud to work at one of the only independent media companies, are equally appalled.

 

I believe this public mood reflects a growing recognition that we all have secrets, and they are not all equally worthy of exposure. I can’t defend yesterday’s story as I can our coverage of Bill O’Reilly, Hillary Clinton or Hulk Hogan.

 

We are proud of running stories that others shy away from, often to preserve relationships or access. But the line has moved. And Gawker has an influence and audience that demands greater editorial restraint.

 

Gawker is no longer the insolent blog that began in 2003. It does important and interesting journalism about politicians, celebrities and other major public figures. This story about the former Treasury Secretary’s brother does not rise to the level that our flagship site should be publishing.

 

The point of this story was not in my view sufficient to offset the embarrassment to the subject and his family. Accordingly, I have had the post taken down. It is the first time we have removed a significant news story for any reason other than factual error or legal settlement.

 

Every story is a judgment call. As we go forward, we will hew to our mission of reporting and publishing important stories that our competitors are too timid, or self-consciously upright, to pursue. There will always be stories that critics attack as inappropriate or unjustified; and we will no doubt again offend the sensibilities of some industries or interest groups.

 

This action will not turn back the clock. David Geithner’s embarrassment will not be eased. But this decision will establish a clear standard for future stories. It is not enough for them simply to be true. They have to reveal something meaningful. They have to be true and interesting. These texts were interesting, but not enough, in my view.

 

In light of Gawker’s past rhetoric about our fearlessness and independence, this can be seen as a capitulation. And perhaps, to some extent, it is. But it is motivated by a sincere effort build a strong independent media company, and to evolve with the audience we serve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tonyko Proficient

Tonyko

Posted
Posted
Folks are now saying it's all a hoax, which may be nothing other than Gawker's attempt to save some face and pave over the damage they've done. Idiots.

 

http://gotnews.com/breaking-exclusive-is-the-gawker-story-an-elaborate-hoax-sure-looks-that-way/

 

If you read that MOUNTAIN of insane texts there is NO doubt that who they were talking to IS in fact Brody S, besides calling the number FROM his ads, the texts echo verbatim his words in his vids etc. And he did NOT deny the story, instead saying HERE'S an even bigger one - re his delusional conspiracy theories. Given his psychosis and inflated sense of self importance (explains his rates btw) he COULD have made the whole thing up JUST to get his voice out there. The client however, seems an odd choice to pick at random out of the blue, no?? He has denied it ALL, but it seems odd this whaco would target him w/o ANY connection or prior contact. No????

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FreshFluff Grand Master

+ FreshFluff

Posted
Posted

Does anyone think that he chose Brody BECAUSE of his high price? With little information about the escort market, he probably figured that a guy charging $2500 must be the most sought after and hot. (He didn't want to read reviews and do research, either because he didn't have time or because he needed to believe that he was doing this on a whim.)

 

I hope this incident doesn't scare too many potential clients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WmClarke Mentor

+ WmClarke

Posted
Posted
Does anyone think that he chose Brody BECAUSE of his high price? With little information about the escort market, he probably figured that a guy charging $2500 must be the most sought after and hot. (He didn't want to read reviews and do research, either because he didn't have time or because he needed to believe that he was doing this on a whim.)

 

I hope this incident doesn't scare too many potential clients.

That's exactly what I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Contact Info:

The Company of Men
5834 C. North Kings Hwy #4343
Alexandria, VA 22303

Email: moderators@companyofmen.org

Help Support Our Site

Our site operates with the support of our members. Make a one-time donation using the buttons below.

$10 $25 $50 $100 $200

Make a recurring donation

Additional Resources

×
×
  • Create New...