October 24, 2005
Krucoff Offed!
Andrew Krucoff, beloved former-Gothamist interviewer, media maven and dark-horse candidate for the Media Bistro editor's job, was just fired from his research job at Conde Nast. His crime? Conde's servers went down last week, and Kru leaked the tech email to Gawker. They report:
Andrew Krucoff, the well-known blogger whom we often jokingly — lovingly, even, we’d say — refer to as Gawker’s mascot, has worked as a freelance research analyst at Conde Nast for the last four months. He’s good at what he does, and his bosses were very pleased with his work. (We know, because his immediate supervisor regularly told us.) Last week, while emailing with us on a totally unrelated matter, he forwarded along an internal notice that Conde’s internet servers were down — just to explain why he’d disappeared from instant messenger. We posted that memo, made a little joke about how our traffic would likely fall and VF staffers would have a harder time killing time. We did not first ask Andrew for his OK, because we didn’t think something so inconsequential would be a big.
Gawker also has Krucoff's explanation of what happened, in his own words:
I only forwarded the “damaging” memo to jesse from my conde nast email address (which i rarely use outside of work) because our web-access was down but company email was still functioning and i needed to tell him something about edits to the heeb magazine piece I submitted to gawker. the internal memo was not intended as a “tip” but an fyi as to why i wasn’t online. as soon as i saw it posted on gawker i feared the worst and hoped it would blow over. (jesse can attest to this.)
And Krucoff fills in some color for us himself:
Jake Dobkin:: care to give me an inflammatory quote for the gothamist piece?Krucoff: I would have skinned puppies in China's illegal fur production for Anna Wintour, and this is the thanks I get.
Jake Dobkin: ha!
Jake Dobkin: so were you escorted off the premises by guards?
Krucoff: by a woman in HR
Jake Dobkin: and were they nice about it, or cruel?
Krucoff: Nothing cruel, though I kinda felt like the kid who gets expelled for pissing on the teacher's desk.
Jake Dobkin: and when they asked if you had sent the memo, did you try to dodge it, or did you just lay it on the line?
Krucoff: i forwarded it for sure, there's nothing to hide. i didnt think it would actually end up on gawker.
Jake Dobkin: of course not-- it's ridiculous
Jake Dobkin: did they give you severance to finance your revenge?
Krucoff: ha, i was freelance
Jake Dobkin: ha!
We asked Lockhart Steele, Gawker's managing editor, what he thought of the situation:
LS: I think it's a sad day for the Internet when someone can be fired for revealing that their company's
Internet isn't working.
LS: hmmm
Jake Dobkin: assuming, of course, laurel doesn't get him first!
LS: He is, as always, invited to crash parties at Denton's.
Jake Dobkin: :-)
And Jesse Oxfeld, Gawker's editor, also gave us his feelings about what happened:
Oxfeld: It sucks. It's paranoid overreaction on Conde's part, especially when you consider that whatAndrew allegedly "leaked" was entirely inconsequential, and his bosses there all loved his work.
Jake Dobkin: do you regret publishing the note?
Oxfeld: Also, I'm a little ashamed. If someone's going to get fired for leaking something to me, I'd really prefer it to be something worth getting fired over.
Oxfeld: regret: Of course I regret taking part in something that got Andrew fired. My regret, though, is
not that I published it but that Conde reacted so humorlessly and vindictively.
Oxfeld: Or, really, my regret is that he didn't send it by Gmail.
This situation is perplexing, to say the least. Surely Conde Nast knew of Krucoff's relationship with Gawker before he was hired there. And surely, groundrules were spelled out for what he was allowed to pass on and what he wasn't. Anyone from Conde Nast feel like giving their side of the story?
Update: Improbably, the Times actually ran a short piece on AK's firing, and they got a quote from Conde Nast:
Maurie Perl, a spokeswoman for Condé Nast, confirmed that Mr. Krucoff was no longer working there, but said that because he was not an employee, he was technically not fired. Still, she said, "He was told today that his services were no longer required." As for company policy on leaking information to outsiders, she said, "As a privately held company, we don't discuss our employee or freelance policies."
|
I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but it isn't like there is no precedent for this type of firing in other industries. Most companies have very strict policies regarding the circulation of internal company memos--regardless of how seemingly inconsequential the content. It was poor judgement on Krucoff's part to forward the internal memo to Gawker, but even worse judgement on Gawker's part to print it (especially if Krucoff's intent was merely an FYI to explain why he was offline). Good one, Gawker. Yet another bad judgement call. Too bad your friend has to take the fall for your gaffe.
"It was poor judgement on Krucoff's part to forward the internal memo to Gawker, but even worse judgement on Gawker's part to print it"
Agreed. For someone as internet media savvy as Krucoff, it's a bit of a stretch for someone to believe that he didn't know forwarding an internal email to a gossip site was wrong. Even if the people at the gossip site are your friends (supposedly), you don't email anything to gossip sites that you don't expect might make it on their front page. Krucoff isn't so naive that he doesn't know this. And his bosses at Conde Nast probably just had the good sense to 'realize' that Krucoff isn't so naive..AND, that if he'd forward 'that' email, he'd probably forward something else more damaging in the future (accidental or intentionally).
To me it washes out like this: I wouldn't hire Krucoff, because he shows poor judgement (internal emails of ANY SORT are to remain internal), and as for his relationship with Gawker, well...if he is still friends with them, then that's proof that he knew what he was doing sending that email. On the other hand, if he really didn't know that Gawker might publish it, then he should completely shun any of his fake friends at Gawker who totally screwed him. BTW, it's also a big stretch to believe that Gawker didn't know Krucoff might be fired if the memo got published.
Of the three entities, it seems like Conde Nast is the only one who did the right/smart thing.
Uhh... as much I hate to say it, I think I'll have to agree with Conde Nasty on this one.
instead of forwarding a memo, why didn't he just email his friend at gawker and say "sorry, but i can't im right now because our systems are down" or something like that?
it's a bit of an overreaction on CN's part, but i guess they have the right to draw a policy line somewhere.
With as much as Gawker has burned CN in the past with internal types handing out info, is anyone amazed they would react like this? I think that Andrew will get a great deal of sympathy from the blogger elite, but as this board shows, from few else. It all seems fair to me. Gawker exercises its srengths all the time, these include the ability to take jabs are the big and mighty with little fear of the ability of reprisal. The big and mighty have only done the same in return. If there is anyone at VF who is savvy, I wouldn;t be surprised to learn that this measure was actually taken as a shot against Gawker and not so much Andrew. Everyone I know who works at VF and in publishing reads Gawker religiously, and certainly knows Andrew and his contentious-yet-friendly relationship there. Firing him was a way to make Gawker look bad in the eyes of its readership, it probably had little to do with Andrew of what he did.
No doubt.
Employees sign a confidentiality agreement. Period. That's that. CNP has sacked people for much less.
No doubt.
Employees sign a confidentiality agreement. Period. That's that. CNP has sacked people for much less.
This is hilarious--in the pure tragic clueless sense--on many levels.
Most importantly, the self-important tone of Gawker staff to the news; almost completely shunning their responsibility for this mess. As if they could not have unpublished the piece--or edited it--after it was published.
But also for Krucoff's judgement in throwing a piece of meat to the wolves--so to say--by forwarding a full memo to Gawker who not surprising ran with it.
Judging Conde Nast's reaction as an over-reaction is quite twee and precious. It's as if Gawker is the sun, and everyone else is orbiting around it. Conde Nast sets a clear policy and Andrew Krucoff broke it. And more perplexing is the attitude that Conde Nast knew Andrew Krucoff was connected to Gawker so they should have excused him. If anything it proves that they were keeping a close eye on him and he blew it.
If my Verizon account goes down, I'm not faxing e-mails from tech-support to clients and co-workers. A simply e-mail or call saying "Internet down. What's up?" usually sufices.
Reading this whole post makes me wonder how many bloggers have ever held real jobs--in the real office worker sense--in their lives. It's simply not shocking it would have happened. Nor--sadly--is it shocking to hear pro-bloggers whine about it as if it were a criminal act.
If you work for someone and they pay you and you agree to work for the--and they pay you--you have to follow the rules. It's as simple as that.
Oh, boo hoo, he'll be fine. Who cares that some rich, privileged kid got fired from some Ivy League playground? It's not like he'll be out on the street.
Is there any NY voice online that -doesn't- represent the snotty elite? I mean, there are plenty of educated, passionate, and real people left in the city, but more and more it seems they're all being pushed out to Jersey for these Gawker/Conde-esque types.
Will New Jersey and the West Coast become the new centers of culture? Probably. The fashion and culture this city prides itself for is pretty much what you find the Connecticut yawning elite wearing anyway these days. Who ever thought -that- was edgy?
Who cares.
this forum is starting to echo a kindergarden playground. no rule is sacrosanct, and that conde nast had it in their legal purview to fire krucoff is irrelevant.
was this an overreaction by conde nast? yes. is the old media getting increasingly paranoid about new media? yes. are these two related? undoubtedly. and i think for me that is the most interesting thing about this story. this is just a skirmish in what will turn out to be a very bloody war.
(and will new jersey become a center of culture? no.)
It's odd that Conde Nast has such a Gawker complex. What the fuck do they care what Gawker thinks of them? Gawker is nothing, it has zero impact on their real business of selling magazines to the public. No one in the rest of the country, or even this city outside of the stupid incestuous media circles, takes it seriously. Yet they seem frightened of "Mighty Gawker" and if anyone is giving Gawker a bloated head then it's actions of the Conde Nast executives who fear it. Scared of Gawker and this Krucoff guy? Let's get real people. I guess Conde Nast and the people who support this over-reacted firing only further legitimize the "threat" blogs pose to mainstream media today. They had every right to let the guy go, but I can't believe they took time out of their day to address it seriously.
Not that I'm the biggest fan of New Jersey, but a lot of the weirdness that New York city calls its own is actually from the outskirts - New Jersey, NY state, etc. People not from the Metro area really won't know, so Midwesterners, etc., need not comment.
Do you think people who don't belong to the mainstream can afford to live in the city anymore? The artists and weirdos who had no place used to live in the city, but now they're all in Jersey or the West Coast because the boring rich kids and WASPS have jacked the rent prices through the roof.
The cutting edge ain't in New York - it's everywhere but. Sorry to break the news if you couldn't tell from reading these blogs.
>>>Is there any NY voice online that -doesn't- represent the snotty elite?
Well, there's
www.forgotten-ny.com
BTW, too many people get laid off and fired. I'm with Krucoff.
I'm also assuming that most employers do not look kindly on employees using their computers and time to work on other jobs (or reading gothamist, but I guess that's another matter ...)
Maurie Perl, that's rich.
I almost forgot. Nobody EVER gets fired from Conde Nast.
"...that Conde Nast had it in their legal purview to fire Krucoff is irrelevant." Excuse me? How is company policy irrelevant when one is an employee (contracted, freelance or otherwise)? This comment seems typical of the sense of bourgeouis entitlement shared by the so-called "blogger elite." The same can be said of comments that the firing was on over-reaction. "This is just a skirmish in what will turn out to be a very bloody war"? Please. The level of self-importance astounds... As noted in other (sane) comments above, this situation is only of note/importance to the incestuous (primarily) NY-based media circles. You kids have fun with your little circle-jerk. But, psst, here's a little secret: just because you blog, that doesn't mean that you're actually part of the inner-circle. There are several more rungs of elitism above you.
hope you had fun misinterpreting my post and then contradicting yourself. but as for the assumptions you made: no, i'm not a blogger, nor am i in media, nor am i a child. to be honest, i've never even heard the phrase "blogger elite".
that said, i stand by my comments which were quite simple. one, conde nast overreacted. two, the rivalry between print and digital media will only intensify.
how this story lends itself to class issues is beyond me.