Scooter Libby isn't the only one feeling the pain of getting caught leaking information. Last week, Conde Nast fired one of Gawker's uber spies.
Gawker is the Manhattan-centric blog that snarks everyone and anything that is not deemed as hip as the Gawker's own inner circle.
Last week Gawker printed an internal memo meant for Conde Nast employees' eyes only.
Really riveting stuff -- a memo about their internal mail server being down.
Normally the spy used his g-mail to forward such scintillating and "stop-the-presses" information.However, on this particular occasion, the spy made a fatal error. He used the Conde Nast email system instead of delivering the covert data via g-mail.
As fast as you could say Patrick J. Fitzgerald ,Andrew Krucoff was dismissed.
This is how Gawker addressed the firing.
"We write lots of mean things about lots of people we’d love to see get some comeuppance. We run lots of leaked memos and internal communications, some of them rather embarrassing to the company from which they were leaked. What’s truly remarkable is that someone was just moments ago fired — and it’s someone we very much like — over an item that wasn’t mean, that didn’t attempt to deliver any comeuppance, and was in no way embarrassing to the company from which it was leaked."
Gawker is missing the point. And the ridiculous part is they know the point. The issue wasn't what was leaked or that it was harmless info, the issue was that a Conde Nast employee was leaking information--- even as inocous as a memo about an internal email server being down.
For Gawker to take on a "gosh darn what's the harm attitude" and to feign surprise that Conde Nast or any company for that matter would fire an employee for sharing that info, is simply disingenuous and laughable.
Gawker knows better. They also know that their uber spy lost his job because of friendly fire. Their pathetic response -- a plea to their readers to help Krucoff find a job.
Excuse me? How about a public apology to Krucoff. How about Gawker hiring Krucoff? Afterall,Gawker betrayed his trust. He served. He delivered the goods. He helped Gawker fuel their war.
As Valerie Plame will tell you, once you've been outed-- its kinda hard to stay in the spy game. Gawker needs to step up to the plate and protect their own.
While the memo that got Krucoff fired may not be embarrassing and harmful, most of Gawker's posts about Conde Nast are beyond acerbic.
What a newcomer to Gawker may not pick up from reading this particular post is that Gawker is at war with Conde Nast.
In 2003, when Gawker was a new phenomenon, mediabistro.com wrote about Gawker's Conde Nast obsession
"It's so media-obsessed—even, specifically, Conde Nast-obsessed—that it spent a good chunk of a recent week discussing and analyzing the ban on garlic in the mag company's famous cafeteria and whether said ban might mean Si Newhouse is a vampire."
Gawker is popular because they snark, they bite, and they delight in humiliating their enemies. It's a great read. but like all great powers, they can be blinded by their obsession.
This particular battle had a casualty. It was Andrew Krucoff. He lost his job. Gawker will survive just fine. Although it does feel like the master of comeuppance just got comeupped and maybe a dose of humility would be a bit refreshing over there.