4 ms·
While I respect that conclusion in general, I think that Gawker in particular has done a lot of sadistic and mean "reporting" which serves no public good. Them
by microcolonel 11y ago
While I respect that conclusion in general, I think that Gawker in particular has done a lot of sadistic and mean "reporting" which serves no public good. Them being sunk seems almost a public good in my opinion.
- bogomipz 11y agoIndeed. The final straw for me was when they outed a Conde Nast exec, there was no scandal, no real story at all but they(Nick Denton) went ahead and destroyed this guy's life. You can read about it here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/17/gawkers-apparent-outing-cfo-meets-internet-backlash/30280505/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/17/gawkers-appar... I think $115 million is OK.
- whateveridunno 11y agoI agree. However, my- or anybody's- personal opinion of a place should have no bearing on whether our judicial system decides to take an independent media outlet down during a court case involving one man. Let me put it this way: I don't care for Gawker and wouldn't mind personally if it sank (though there are good journalists there doing good work); I do care for the potential chilling effect this could have on other media. (And let me make clear that I do think Bollea should have been compensated and Gawker punished, just not with $115 million.)