10 ms·
Yes, exactly. After Thiel was revealed as the financier, some in the media saw an opportunity to re-caste the narrative in a way that they knew would appeal to
by jshevek 10y ago
Yes, exactly.
After Thiel was revealed as the financier, some in the media saw an opportunity to re-caste the narrative in a way that they knew would appeal to our hatred of the rich and our fear for their abuse of power. The story became all about Thiel the alleged bully, the abuser of power, his petty grudge, etc etc. It was effective manipulation, just look at the comments here from those who think this 'sets a bad precedent'.
Never mind that Thiel's side was right and Gawker was wrong. Never mind that the mechanism employed to achieve justice here is basically the same mechanism that the ACLU uses.
- deong 10y agoFirstly, the ACLU is open about it. There's no way to know, but my guess is that had Thiel stepped up in public a few years ago and said, "Gawker is a terrible gossip rag that needs to be taught a lesson -- contact me if they've wronged you too, and I'll help you mount a case", people would be less angry at him. People don't like the idea that a shadowy cabal can run things behind the scenes without any public scrutiny. Secondly, the ACLU does not generally appear vindictive. The ACLU looks to fund cases with a motive that people generally understand to be making things better for American society. Thiel may claim that removing Gawker from the face of the earth is a public service, but given the obvious history, that seems laughable. He appears vindictive, not altruistic.
- partiallypro 10y agoThe ACLU is only public about it because part of their mission is to raise awareness. They have PR blitzes to publicize new cases they are taking on.