Discussion
  • Read More
    Graby SauceTom Scocca
    5/02/13 3:27pm

    Let's say that Kurtz's original accusation was correct, that Collins hadn't explained that he'd dated a woman previously. What the hell difference does that make to the story? I honestly don't understand why this was such an issue with Kurtz that he got fired over it. Is he saying that Collins is lying about being gay?

    I just don't get it. What point was he trying to make?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ADogCalledEgoGraby Sauce
      5/02/13 3:32pm

      Yes, he was trying to say that Collins was lying to someone at some point about being gay. Because no gay person has ever, ever done that and he must be shamed publicly for doing so.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      secretagentmanGraby Sauce
      5/02/13 3:37pm

      He has a history with this subject. I'm sorry I can't remember the details, but he had a back and forth with a writer at Buzzfeed about the gays. There's probably a link to it over there.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    corey3rdTom Scocca
    5/02/13 3:19pm

    Does this mean he's free to babysit on Friday night?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ILoveLucidityTom Scocca
      5/02/13 4:14pm

      Kurtz has always been homophobic — he's part of that last bastion of straight white guys in the media who really, really hate the idea that gays—as well as women, minorities, and even, God, people who didn't go to good colleges—have the same rights in America that he has. Read his columns over the years, if you can bear it, and the same themes emerge: privilege is important, and only the Kurtzes of the world deserve it. Oh the horror!

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        gramercypoliceTom Scocca
        5/02/13 3:39pm

        My guess: Like the Forstall/Apple/Maps thing, they wanted him to write a retraction, he probably only wanted a correction, they printed a retraction over his objection, he hadn't seen that coming, he said something about it and painted himself into an "I'll quit!" corner, and they accepted his decision before he had a chance to backpedal.

        He's an ass either way, even without the Jason Collins incident.

        Reply
        <
        • Read More
          MisterHippityTom Scocca
          5/02/13 3:36pm

          Apparently, "retract" does not mean "remove." The original post is still there, with a note at the top saying it's been retracted. (See: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/…")

          Shouldn't they remove the text of the post itself? I thought that's kind of what "retract" means: "We were wrong to publish this, so retracting it from publication."

          In the old print world, of course, you couldn't remove an article once you published it. But this is the Web world, where "taking something back" means you can literally take it back from public view. Maybe somebody should tell the Daily Beast that?

          Reply
          <
          • Read More
            stacyinbeanMisterHippity
            5/02/13 4:55pm

            I wonder if they think there will be an outcry if it's removed, as if they are trying to hide it? People are so weird now, they will find anything to lose their shit over.

            Reply
            <
        • Read More
          jimhopkins415Tom Scocca
          5/02/13 3:59pm

          Sounds like more cost-cutting by Daily Beast, which isn't surprising, given all the problems at Newsweek. Kurtz was rumored to being paid mucho when he started. (I say "more," given the fact that Andrew Sullivan left not that long ago.)

          http://www.businessinsider.com/daily-beast-we…

          Reply
          <
          • Read More
            waswonderofwondersTom Scocca
            5/02/13 3:23pm

            Well guess Howie has some 'splainin to do on CNN on Sunday. If he's there.

            Reply
            <
            • Read More
              Bad BeediTom Scocca
              5/02/13 3:51pm

              Whats this thing about him spending way too much time over at Daily Download compared to at Tina Brown's stove-side rag?

              "The site, Daily Download, is a regular fixture in Kurtz's Twitter feed and a place where he increasingly posts his takes on the state of media affairs. But no one is sure why, exactly, he's so involved with this particular piece of Internet real estate. Indeed, several of Kurtz's Daily Beast/Newsweek colleagues said they were baffled by the situation.

              “There is a lot of gossip here about his connection to the Daily Download," one newsroom staffer told The Huffington Post, noting that judging by his output, the high-profile media critic seems to be spending more of his time these days on Daily Download than The Daily Beast."

              "Lately, Kurtz has been promoting Daily Download content on Twitter significantly more than content from his primary employers combined.

              In April, Kurtz tweeted over 120 links to Daily Download, around 20 links to The Daily Beast and even fewer to CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” the weekly media criticism show he's hosted since 1998. Given that Kurtz has over 125,000 Twitter followers, that’s a lot of potential eyeballs directed to a site that doesn’t employ him either full or part-time."

              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/01/how…

              Reply
              <
              • Read More
                LaszloPanaflexTom Scocca
                5/02/13 3:21pm

                A simple "Wow I really blew it on that one!" or "I missed a crucial sentence. Sorry!" from Howard Kurtz might have saved his job? Who knows? But certainly, standing by your very obvious error is not the best strategy anymore. Maybe it was in 2003, but not in 2013.

                Reply
                <