Given the task definition and input, reply with output. In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.

Yesterday evening, Gawker.com published a story about the CFO of Conde Nast texting an escort. It was an editorial call, a close call around which there were more internal disagreements than usual. And it is a decision I regret. 
  
 The story involves extortion, illegality and reckless behavior, sufficient justification at least in tabloid news terms. The account was true and well-reported. It concerns a senior business executive at one of the most powerful media companies on the planet. 
  
 In the early days of the internet, that would have been enough. “We put truths on the internet.” That has been the longstanding position of Gawker journalists, some of the most uncompromising and uncompromised on the internet. I cannot blame our editors and writers for pursuing that original mission. 
  
 But the media environment has changed, our readers have changed, and I have changed. Not only is criticism of yesterday’s piece from readers intense, but much of what they’ve said has resonated. Some of our own writers, proud to work at one of the only independent media companies, are equally appalled. 
  
 I believe this public mood reflects a growing recognition that we all have secrets, and they are not all equally worthy of exposure. I can’t defend yesterday’s story as I can our coverage of Bill O’Reilly, Hillary Clinton or Hulk Hogan. 
  
 We are proud of running stories that others shy away from, often to preserve relationships or access. But the line has moved. And Gawker has an influence and audience that demands greater editorial restraint. 
  
 Advertisement 
  
 Gawker is no longer the insolent blog that began in 2003. It does important and interesting journalism about politicians, celebrities and other major public figures. This story about the former Treasury Secretary’s brother does not rise to the level that our flagship site should be publishing. 
  
 The point of this story was not in my view sufficient to offset the embarrassment to the subject and his family. Accordingly, I have had the post taken down. It is the first time we have removed a significant news story for any reason other than factual error or legal settlement. 
  
 Every story is a judgment call. As we go forward, we will hew to our mission of reporting and publishing important stories that our competitors are too timid, or self-consciously upright, to pursue. There will always be stories that critics attack as inappropriate or unjustified; and we will no doubt again offend the sensibilities of some industries or interest groups. 
  
 Advertisement 
  
 This action will not turn back the clock. David Geithner’s embarrassment will not be eased. But this decision will establish a clear standard for future stories. It is not enough for them simply to be true. They have to reveal something meaningful. They have to be true and interesting. These texts were interesting, but not enough, in my view. 
  
 In light of Gawker’s past rhetoric about our fearlessness and independence, this can be seen as a capitulation. And perhaps, to some extent, it is. But it is motivated by a sincere effort build a strong independent media company, and to evolve with the audience we serve. ||||| These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites. |||||

A pair of controversial videos were at the center of two of this week's public apologies: Bad Samaritan: “I want to offer a public apology to the families of the kids that got injured or deceased in the car accident. I never intended it to be a video that came across as a gore video. I wanted to put the video out there so other kids could see it and learn from the mistake of speeding and driving recklessly.”—Paul Pelton, an Ohio man charged after filming the aftermath of a deadly car accident instead of helping the victims. Wrong tone: “Our top priority is the passionate care that we provide. In our video, one of our staff members speaks in a way that does not reflect that compassion. This is unacceptable, and I personally apologize for the staff member’s tone and statements."—Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, after an undercover video surfaced of a staffer talking about fetal organs. Bad timing: “We apologize to readers and mourn with the victims’ relatives and loved ones."—Ria Novosti, state-owned news agency in Russia, after posting a happy-go-lucky news quiz ("Congratulations! Your answer is correct") about the crash of a Malaysian airliner over Ukraine on the one-year anniversary. Making matters worse is that many blame Russia, at least pro-Russian rebels, for the crash. Jumping the gun: "An associate accidentally discarded a bag of goldfish that had just arrived at the store and appeared to all be deceased. When a customer noticed the mistake, an associate was able to recover the few live fish and place them into a tank. We regret the mistake and are reviewing our policies to avoid future errors.”—PetSmart, after an employee in Michigan tossed live fish in the trash. Unposted: "The point of this story was not in my view sufficient to offset the embarrassment to the subject and his family. Accordingly, I have had the post taken down. It is the first time we have removed a significant news story for any reason other than factual error or legal settlement."—Nick Denton of Gawker, explaining why he made the rare move to pull a salacious story.