PressEthic

Andrew Krucoff, a blogger for Gawker, was fired from his freelance research analyst job at Conde Nast by “leaking” the following information from a company wide email last week:

From: Brownell, Gary Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 1:57 PM To: Conde Nast Publications-All; FP Fairchild; Parade - New York; Golf Digest Companies-All; Advance Magazine Group-All Subject: Internet Access Unavailable

We are investigating the inability to access the Internet from several of our offices. We’ll keep you updated on the progress to restore it.

Gary

Hold the phone! That’s seriously private information there! Krucoff, who forwarded the message to Gawker’s Jesse Oxfeld on an unrelated matter and says the “internal memo was not intended as a “tip” but as an FYI as to why I wasn’t online.” Because the internet was down, Krucoff sent this email via his conde nast email. Oops.

So Gawker posted it, made a snide comment, and Krucoff was fired.

Is this slightly ridiculous or am I crazy? If I was Krucoff I’d be angry at Gawker for not thinking things through and posting the forwarded message without concern for their “mascot”.

Some posts from the story:

When I first saw the post that got Andy fired I thought "In what world is this ordinary, average company memo remotely interesting?" But now that they fired Andy I think "Conde Nast is evil and I'm boycotting their publications." By: Lindsay (lindsayism.com)

As a lover of revisionist history that is true to the extent that although you didn't narc on him per se, you did post something that wasn't meant for our deserving eyes. Face it, Gawker is now the blog-Linda Trippe. By: theocritus aka: John Kinsella

If Krucoff had just told Gawker over the phone that the internet at Conde Nast was down, would he still have gotten fired? What kind of “leak” is that anyway? It’s not harmful - It’s not even uncommon. Did they fire Krucoff because they were embarrassed by the Gawker comment on the email? I guess so….

Is what Krukoff did unethical? Did he do it to damage Conde Nast? Was the information privileged and essentially “off the record”? I doubt that if Gawker hadn’t published it Krukoff would have been fired. But with such banal information – what’s the big deal?

With journalists being outed for plagiarized information and wishy-washy sourcing, is the community as a whole becoming a bit too paranoid? I don’t think what Krucoff did warranted being escorted out of the Conde Nast building by a woman in HR. I think it makes them look silly and makes Krucoff out to be the victim.

I’m not sure about the policy at Conde Nast – but I think their actions in this matter are a little extreme. If Judy Miller can get away with writing fake articles and misleading some of the top newspapers in the country and still keep her job – it makes Krucoff’s “accident” look downright ridiculous.