2/2 After Hearst executives spiked the Singer investigation, took it on -- edited it, fact-checked it again, and published. Not a single fact in the piece has ever been challenged. You can read more about Hearst's sorry behavior here
Have long wondered how the Bryan Singer piece got spiked at Esquire and got the fucked up story
. did a brave thing when he was editor of Esquire, and in this column he gets the credit he deserves
“She told them the story could use a sympathetic victim, like Gwyneth Paltrow, the writers said”
I also had an investigation about sexual harassment killed by a Hearst pub (for understandable reasons)—but I’ll never forget being told that the protagonist in my initial pitch wasn’t young and pretty enough for the mag’s demographic!
Did Hearst’s Culture Kill Hearst’s Biggest Magazine Story?
In which tells us the real story behind the "fancy man" walkout at Esquire
The Atlantic: Hardly a run-and-gun tabloid operation since 1857 (Thanks for the tagline, .)
“Shrinking businesses make for bitter workplaces, and it’s true Young shifted Hearst away from a freewheeling era of glossy print journalism toward a new reality of clicks & algorithms. But I’ve never seen crude talk as part of the digital transformation.”
A complicated must-read about Hearst and corporate/journalistic ethics, from
Also: The backstory to this is not what we thought it was!
Young's decision to tell employees that a union would threaten Hearst's company culture was probably not his best idea!