A.J. Daulerio (Photo: Facebook)

Gawker editor-in-chief A.J. Daulerio is leaving the site. He sent out a memo to Gawker staff this afternoon shortly after the news broke on NY Mag's Daily Intelligencer blog. In his email announcing his departure, Mr. Daulerio was vague about his future plans.

"This is the right move for the site in 2013," he wrote. "As for 2014, who the fuck knows?"

Mr. Daulerio joined Gawker in December 2011 from Gawker Media's sports site Deadspin. He will be replaced by Gawker writer John Cook. Sources told the Observer Mr. Daulerio had recently asked Gawker head honcho Nick Denton to take a higher position overseeing multiple blogs at the Gawker Media network but was told by Mr. Denton that he was not "responsible" enough. In spite of this, other sources at the company say he quit and was not fired by Mr. Denton.

Mr. Denton sent out an email of his own in which he praised Mr. Daulerio for improving the site while  taking "the pressure off writers to deliver traffic with every piece."

"AJ's tenure at Gawker has been much like him: bold, infuriating, unpredictable... and often brilliant," Mr. Denton wrote. "He's melded both the writers he inherited and new hires into the strongest editorial team Gawker has ever seen. I don't know how he does it. I mean, I really don't fully understand: AJ breaks all the usual rules of orthodox management and has still been the most successful editor of Gawker.com. (As a former editor of the site myself, I'm slightly piqued.)"

Mr. Denton also expressed confidence Mr. Cook will "will preserve the crew and build on the success of 2012."

In an email to the Observer, Mr. Daulerio quoted an infamous line from his girlfriend, erstwhile Vice columnist Cat Marnell, to describe his next move.

"I plan to hang out on the rooftop of Le Bain looking for shooting stars smoking angel dust with my friends," he wrote.

Mr. Denton told us to "ask AJ and John about their plans."

Read Mr. Daulerio and Mr. Denton's full emails below.

Mr. Daulerio's email to Gawker staff.

"For those of you not in the people aquarium meeting a few short minutes ago, it is my duty to inform you via email that I'm leaving Gawker Media. John Cook is the new editor of Gawker.com. This makes me extremely happy.This is the right move for the site in 2013. As for 2014, who the fuck knows? You should keep that attitude and continue to make this site work for you right now. That's what makes it fun. 

You were all hired here (or kept here) for a reason. 

If you have questions, you know I will be here to answer them even after John takes over this desktop covered in Vaseline.

xoxoxoxo.

Onward."

Mr. Denton's email to Gawker staff:

"Date: Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 5:28 PM
Subject: Fwd: Dear Staff

“So starting now, we want to draw a clear line on this. Citing Times policy, reporters should say no if a source demands, as a condition of an interview, that quotes be submitted afterward to the source or a press aide to review, approve or edit,” said the memo (full text below).

Giving sources the final say, after the fact, “puts so much control over the content of journalism in the wrong place,” executive editor Jill Abramson told Times public editor Margaret Sullivan. “We need a tighter policy.”

Ms. Sullivan and David Carr both wrote a column this week condemning the practice.

Quote approval–which has become increasingly common in recent years, especially with politicians–has been under increased scrutiny of late because of an article Jeremy Peters wrote about the practice July and Vanity Fair scribe Michael Lewis' admission he allowed the White House to approve quotes for a lengthy profile of President Barack Obama in the magazine's October issue.

“It is a double-edged sword for journalists, who are getting the on-the-record quotes they have long asked for, but losing much of the spontaneity and authenticity in their interviews,” Mr. Peters wrote, in his article.

Full Memo:

Despite our reporters’ best efforts, we fear that demands for after-the-fact “quote approval” by sources and their press aides have gone too far. The practice risks giving readers a mistaken impression that we are ceding too much control over a story to our sources. In its most extreme forms, it invites meddling by press aides and others that goes far beyond the traditional negotiations between reporter and source over the terms of an interview.

So starting now, we want to draw a clear line on this. Citing Times policy, reporters should say no if a source demands, as a condition of an interview, that quotes be submitted afterward to the source or a press aide to review, approve or edit.

We understand that talking to sources on background — not for attribution — is often valuable to reporting, and unavoidable. Negotiation over the terms of using quotations, whenever feasible, should be done as part of the same interview — with an “on the record” coda, or with an agreement at the end of the conversation to put some parts on the record. In some cases, a reporter or editor may decide later, after a background interview has taken place, that we want to push for additional on-the-record quotes. In that situation, where the initiative is ours, this is acceptable. Again, quotes should not be submitted to press aides for approval or edited after the fact.

We realize that at times this approach will make our push for on-the-record quotes even more of a challenge. But in the long run, we think resetting the bar, and making clear that we will not agree to put after-the-fact quote-approval in the hands of press aides, will help in that effort.

We know our reporters face ever-growing obstacles in Washington, on Wall Street and elsewhere. We want to strengthen their hand in pushing back against the quote-approval process, which all of us dislike. Being able to cite a clear Times policy should aid their efforts and insulate them from some of the pressure they face.

Any potential exceptions to this approach should be discussed with a department head or a masthead editor.

Good to know the paper of record is no longer letting other people write the record.

The promotion has several ripple effects, including additional responsibilities for chief financial officer Ruth Porat, the subject of a gender-riffic profile in The Times in November. Let's go to the memo:

Frank Barron, who joined us in September as Chief Legal Officer, will take on added responsibility for coordinating our activities in Washington, D.C. Accordingly, our Government Relations Group led by Michael Stein will now report to him. Frank will also work with Marty Cohen, Corporate Secretary, and me on matters related to the Morgan Stanley Board of Directors, including the annual shareholders’ meeting.

Ruth Porat, Chief Financial Officer, will assume responsibility for the Global Sustainable Finance Group led by Audrey Choi. As its name suggests, this group spearheads our various initiatives around environmental sustainability, economic opportunity and community development, including compliance with the U.S. Community Reinvestment Act.

mtaylor [at] observer.com | @mbrookstaylor

The memo reads like completed game of Mad Libs: Corporate Buzzword Edition. To many Condé employees — who presumably have some ear for crisp prose and correct diction, considering the magazine titles they help put out — this is a bit distressing. 

"I'm not clear on how building layers of SVPs and executives 'streamlines' the operation," a source inside Condé Nast told The Observer. "What we need is empowered editorial people and smart, fierce publishers. Not more suits making 'strategic' decisions. I mean, come on."

The New York Times' David Carr vented his frustrations over the memo at Media Decoder. "We all read it and have no idea what he was talking about," a Condé Nast employee told Carr. "It’s the kind of communication where there are no verbs and every other word is some kind of buzzy techno jargon."

WWD's Memo Pad also noted the overwhelming "huh?" that came in response to the dense, cumbersome wording and the cringe-inducing repetition of words like "brand."

“The consensus was: What was that?” said one Condé Nast insider, while another wondered, “What is centricity?”, referring to the memo’s underscoring of Condé Nast’s “commitment to consumer centricity.”

Carr supplemented his take on the mumbo jumbo by running the thing through the Gobbledygook Grader, which assigns a block of text a number based on its readability. The memo earned a 76, which Carr says indicates it "borders on indecipherable." 

nfreeman [at] observer.com | @nfreeman1234