3 ms·

I find it kind of perverse to champion a company based solely on their profitability. Gawker was a profitable media company because they were one of the the onl

I find it kind of perverse to champion a company based solely on their profitability. Gawker was a profitable media company because they were one of the the only ones debased enough to resort to muckraking for their tasteless, voyeuristic audiences. Good riddance, I say.

danso 10y ago
Yeah, there were definitely other instances of lines being crossed, but for which Gawker would not have been sued, because the subjects didn't have Hogan's celebrity (or Thiel's backing): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3488027/Gawker-editor-AJ-Daulerio-refused-college-girl-s-pleas-possible-rape-video.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3488027/Gawker-edito... As much great journalism Gawker has produced, we can't ignore that such work was mostly loss-leaders, and not likely what drove its revenue and popularity. The decision to post the Hogan video was just a symptom of that culture, albeit a fatal symptom.
matthewowen 10y ago
Why are you using "muckraking" as a negative term?
- calbear81 10y ago
  Lots of people here get riled up because Gawker wasn't drinking the kool-aid. I personally like having a muckraker who keeps everyone's egos in check.
CM30 10y ago
Reminds me of how the Daily Mail is the most popular newspaper in the UK (and also has rather questionable quality stories and reporting): http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/mail-titles-overtake-sun-become-most-read-national-newspaper-brand-according-nrs/ http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/mail-titles-overtake-sun-becom... But yeah, a company being profitable (especially a media one) doesn't mean it's a good thing for society.