I missed the part where I said that the site was destroyed. They ARE a news organization, however. And they get it right more often than not. Which is why peop

I missed the part where I said that the site was destroyed. They ARE a news organization, however. And they get it right more often than not. Which is why people read them. Do those people (who honestly suffered more due to this hack than Gawker ever will) deserve this? No. They aren't frauds; they're provocative. There's a difference. They weren't claiming to be tech gods. And to trash them as "frauds" for their weak security is like trashing an athlete for not being a good writer. There are two different standards here. And do you know how many newspapers make stupid mistakes? A lot of them. Gawker has a staff the tenth of the size of your average national newspaper yet pulls in a similar number of viewers. Making stupid mistakes comes with the territory with journalism. Even the big boys screw up. Dislike Gawker because they're arrogant. Don't read them if you think they are. Don't suggest they're "frauds" though.