Throughout July, Daulerio talked to additional sources. The more he pushed and dug, the more confident he felt that Sterger was telling the truth about the photos. Football season was approaching. Meanwhile, the sports media were speculating that Favre was considering coming out of retirement yet again. Daulerio thought that his possible return to football could be a news peg for the Sterger photo story.

In late July, Daulerio pressed Sterger for more details. She said her final text message from Favre arrived in June 2009. He had retired from the Jets in February 2009, and was in New York City for an HBO Sports show with host Joe Buck. On the show, Favre had admitted that he was considering a comeback to play for the Minnesota Vikings. Stergers additional information was enough for Daulerio. I was basically locked in at that point, Daulerio says.

Editorial Process . At Deadspin and at all Gawker sitesthe writer of a post was responsible for fact checking the story. Still, mistakes inevitably occurred. As with most news organizations, the staff included legal counsel. At Gawker , that person was Gaby Darbyshire, the media companys chief operating officer and legal director (she trained originally as a barrister in the United Kingdom).

Obviously, we are known to be quite controversial and to be more risk-takers than the mainstream media, says Darbyshire. ^[10] To guide staff, Darbyshire had put together a strongly worded and clearly defined set of editorial policies. Editors are all expected to understand the basics of law, like copyright law and libel.

Darbyshire did not review every item prior to posting. Such a policy would have created a bottleneck, given that Gawker Media sites published hundreds of items a day. Instead, she explains, we work under a principle of asking for my forgiveness, not for my permission. If a problem arose, Darbyshire asked the writer to describe the history of reporting the story, what happened, why someone was upset and any salient details. She might suggest the writer add a clarification or an update. If the offended subject of a story sent a letter or statement, Deadspin was willing to publish it. But that did not happen often. Darbyshire explains:

Most of the time, no forgiveness [of the writer] is required because were entirely right, were within the law, and you have someone whos complaining because they dont like what was said about them. But were perfectly entitled under the First Amendment to say so.

Occasionally, something could be sloppy, the misuse of a word thats really meaningful, she addsfor example, something said in jest. But items that might be construed as libel in a traditional newspaper might not be considered as such given the tone and context of all Gawker sites. She notes:

Theres a difference between the New Yorker spending nine months on an article, and being a site that prints rumors. And you know, often theres no smoke without fire, because most of the stufflife imitating art imitating life. You cant make this [expletive deleted] up. Its too crazy.

Darbyshire asserts that sometimes one source is sufficient to publish an item. However, obviously, the more sources you have to corroborate something, the better, she adds. Whats ironic is people think that we dont do enough background source checking and research [Actually, Daulerio] is much more diligent a journalist than he lets on in public. She was comfortable with writers relying on secondhand sources if the story seemed credible, and the writer was willing to stand behind it.

Since its founding, only one lawsuit had been brought against Deadspin . In 2009, football player Sean Salisbury sued the website for libel because Daulerio reported that Salisbury had been fired by one of ESPNs radio stations for sending cellphone photos of his penis to a woman who worked at the station. ^[11] Several months into the lawsuit, Salisbury admitted on national radio that he had, in fact, done that. The lawsuit was dropped.

Now Daulerio had a similar story, this time involving Favre. Everybody loved the Brett Favre story of triumph over adversity, he says. He transcended sports in a lot of ways. That was precisely why Daulerio felt the story was important. I [knew I was] going to get a lot of [expletive deleted] on this, and the upside in my mind was basically, like, still tremendous, he says.

Hear more: Gaby Darbyshire explains Gawker Media's approach to controversial stories

As July turned to August, Daulerio considered his options. He had a secondhand story based on multiple anonymous sources. Posting it would be risky. Sterger still refused to go on the record. Publication might trigger a lawsuit from Favre against Daulerio and Deadspin . Daulerio also realized that many fans would be surprised and dismayed to hear of Favres behavior.

The only thing missing was the photos themselves. But Daulerios efforts to get copies had so far failed. Maybe if he published what he knew, the pictures would surface. This is the type of thing that could potentially get some national attention or, at least, spark some national conversation about the behavior of athletes, he says.