When I was hiring people for Gawker, I wanted to hire people I really respected because I was afraid of people kind of stepping into the firing line of the internet by signing up for new Gawker. Those were always the decisions where the women on the staff felt like they really weren’t involved with them or to kind of look the other way, because there’s this macho energy that was behind them. It probably was a subconscious thing going into this Gawker that I hired mostly all women because the misogyny was such a powerful and noxious force when I was there. My mission statement going into this Gawker was to take the parts I really loved about the time I work there that don’t really get remembered because they’re not a sex tape, and make those into the cornerstone of the new Gawker. And I edited some of my favorite pieces I ever did at Gawker. And then the rest of Gawker was funny and smart and provocative.
The Gawker 2.0 missionĪn important thing to know and to realize about old Gawker is that the lawsuits and the really incendiary stuff, and, you know, the misogyny that was only about - not to minimize it - 20% of what Gawker was. Here are a few highlights from the conversation, which have been edited for length and clarity. In this conversation, Finnegan discusses how she’s crafted her management style to addresses these issues while also building Gawker 2.0 into a brand that she and her team is proud of. This is the third episode of a four-part series called “The Modern Newsroom Leader,” which features newly appointed editors-in-chief as they navigate industry challenges including staffers dealing with burnout, unsteady financial businesses and prioritizing diversity, equity and inclusion in hiring practices.
0 kommentar(er)
