4 ms·

Even if you believe that Gawker was guilty of something in posting the Hogan sex tapes, I have a very hard time understanding how anyone can view the annihilati

by chasing 10y ago

Even if you believe that Gawker was guilty of something in posting the Hogan sex tapes, I have a very hard time understanding how anyone can view the annihilation of the company as justice. The other side on this case certainly wasn't out for justice, that seems clear. They were out for blood and revenge. And they got it. Gawker fucked up a lot. But our media landscape is worse off without it.

bsg75 10y ago
I'm genuinely interested in how this community views the demise of a site like gawker will have an actual effect on those like the NYT, CNN, WaPo, etc. ?
- RodericDay 10y ago
  well, Gawker is a nuisance/gadfly that throws a lot of dirt all over, while NYT/CNN/WaPo are very establishment and play nice with all but the very worst of rich people so I don't know if they are the same "community"
lmkg 10y ago
Gawker is not being destroyed because they broke the law. Many companies, including media companies, do that on the regular. Gawker is being destroyed because a billionaire didn't like them, and decided to devote enough time & money to destroy them. Regardless of your opinion of Gawker, the precedent is that news publishers can successfully be destroyed if they make powerful enemies. Many news sites are already hesitant to report on powerful individuals, and now they are being proven that they were right to do so. For someone like me who believes that a free press is an important check on power, this is bad precedent to set.
- andylei 10y ago
  actually, it seems like gawker is being destroyed because it made powerful enemies AND broke the law.
curt15 10y ago
Is the implication that Hogan should not have been able to prosecute his lawsuit? What if he got the same outcome by funding it himself?
- chasing 10y ago
  That's not what I'm saying, although the whole thing would feel less scandalous if Peter Thiel's name wasn't attached. Commenting on the legality of what Gawker or Hogan did is above my pay-grade. But a nine-figure judgment that might be overturned but has nevertheless destroyed the company is not a just response to the purported crime. How can it not chill any journalistic organization?
baakss 10y ago
>Gawker fucked up a lot. But our media landscape is worse off without it. I disagree that we're clearly worse off. For a good explanation on why, this is a pretty good read: https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulator/dp/1591846285 https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulato... The thesis, for those less interested in buying the book, is that when we embraced blogs like Gawker and Buzzfeed as a source of news content, the quality of our news decreased drastically. You went from sort of the New York Times subscription-based model, where people are subscribed already and your journalists can focus on the quality of your content, back to the days of "EXTRA! Read all about it," where everyone is just trying to be heard over the thousands of other available blogs. So our headlines became clickbait, content became lies, and because it's so pervasive, there is little to no accountability. The hogan case is important because it adds accountability.
ufmace 10y ago
If you lean to the Right at all, you see that this happens all the time, and has been happening for a very long time. There are always groups of people who try to set themselves up as an elite, who can never face justice for anything, and who can destroy anybody they feel like without consequences. America was set up so that it's harder for actual politicians to be truly elite, so it's more media figures and bureaucrats. The real elite are leftists, but that doesn't mean they're the same as the left. Witness how almost the whole DNC lined up against Bernie Sanders. This sort of thing happens all the time, to many arguably undeserving people. It's only getting attention because it's happening to an organization that was supposed to be part of the Elite. As such, I don't feel much sympathy for them. The article was right on on this point. This quote: > Gilles Wullus of the group Reporters Without Borders told the BBC that the Gawker case poses a dire threat to press freedom. “Journalism ethics should be taken care of by journalists themselves,” he said. “In case they do not, we think that nobody else can do it in their place, neither states nor governments; especially not wealthy individuals.” Seriously?? Just like they say, can you imagine the uproar if somebody said the same thing about petroleum industry executives?

by chasing 10y ago

bsg75 10y ago

I'm genuinely interested in how this community views the demise of a site like gawker will have an actual effect on those like the NYT, CNN, WaPo, etc. ?

RodericDay 10y ago
well, Gawker is a nuisance/gadfly that throws a lot of dirt all over, while NYT/CNN/WaPo are very establishment and play nice with all but the very worst of rich people so I don't know if they are the same "community"

lmkg 10y ago

Gawker is not being destroyed because they broke the law. Many companies, including media companies, do that on the regular. Gawker is being destroyed because a billionaire didn't like them, and decided to devote enough time & money to destroy them. Regardless of your opinion of Gawker, the precedent is that news publishers can successfully be destroyed if they make powerful enemies. Many news sites are already hesitant to report on powerful individuals, and now they are being proven that they were right to do so. For someone like me who believes that a free press is an important check on power, this is bad precedent to set.

andylei 10y ago
actually, it seems like gawker is being destroyed because it made powerful enemies AND broke the law.

curt15 10y ago

Is the implication that Hogan should not have been able to prosecute his lawsuit? What if he got the same outcome by funding it himself?

chasing 10y ago
That's not what I'm saying, although the whole thing would feel less scandalous if Peter Thiel's name wasn't attached. Commenting on the legality of what Gawker or Hogan did is above my pay-grade. But a nine-figure judgment that might be overturned but has nevertheless destroyed the company is not a just response to the purported crime. How can it not chill any journalistic organization?

baakss 10y ago

>Gawker fucked up a lot. But our media landscape is worse off without it. I disagree that we're clearly worse off. For a good explanation on why, this is a pretty good read: https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulator/dp/1591846285 https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulato... The thesis, for those less interested in buying the book, is that when we embraced blogs like Gawker and Buzzfeed as a source of news content, the quality of our news decreased drastically. You went from sort of the New York Times subscription-based model, where people are subscribed already and your journalists can focus on the quality of your content, back to the days of "EXTRA! Read all about it," where everyone is just trying to be heard over the thousands of other available blogs. So our headlines became clickbait, content became lies, and because it's so pervasive, there is little to no accountability. The hogan case is important because it adds accountability.

ufmace 10y ago

If you lean to the Right at all, you see that this happens all the time, and has been happening for a very long time. There are always groups of people who try to set themselves up as an elite, who can never face justice for anything, and who can destroy anybody they feel like without consequences. America was set up so that it's harder for actual politicians to be truly elite, so it's more media figures and bureaucrats. The real elite are leftists, but that doesn't mean they're the same as the left. Witness how almost the whole DNC lined up against Bernie Sanders. This sort of thing happens all the time, to many arguably undeserving people. It's only getting attention because it's happening to an organization that was supposed to be part of the Elite. As such, I don't feel much sympathy for them. The article was right on on this point. This quote: > Gilles Wullus of the group Reporters Without Borders told the BBC that the Gawker case poses a dire threat to press freedom. “Journalism ethics should be taken care of by journalists themselves,” he said. “In case they do not, we think that nobody else can do it in their place, neither states nor governments; especially not wealthy individuals.” Seriously?? Just like they say, can you imagine the uproar if somebody said the same thing about petroleum industry executives?