16 ms·

The R. Kelly ‘cult’ story and the ‘Gawker Effect’

95 points by iamjeff 9y ago

tptacek 9y ago
Well. It almost never ran in Buzzfeed (or the other 3 outfits DeRogatis pitched it to). But it certainly would have run! DeRogatis has been on the R. Kelly beat ever since he broke the original story about Kelly's statutory rape. He didn't report this story on a whim. One way or the other, it would have gotten out, and it would have gotten attention. Not only that, but it's possible the story would have been better, or at least sharper: Buzzfeed's lawyers cut back the allegations.
endgame 9y ago
Gawker didn't have to defy a judge and leave the sex tape up. Why is the author blaming the victim here?
austenallred 9y ago
Am I the only one who sees a major difference between publishing a negative story about someone and publishing an illegaly-obtained sex tape in its entirety, and refusing to take it down after a judge orders to do so? I get the concern that blowback a could happen, but Gawker died because of Gawker, not just because some rich guy went after them.
- slaveofallah93 9y ago
  I don't think you are the only one. I imagine the courts would have the same opinion.
- spinlock 9y ago
  This is what's called a "chilling effect." Sure, the next paper might not get put out of business if Tiel decideds to sue them, but an editor could loose his job for publishing the story that pissed him off.
  - MBCook 9y ago
    But people should be blaming Gawker not Tiel.
  - CrystalLangUser 9y ago
    Do you understand the situation with Gawker at all? The “chilling” effect is really just not publishing private sex tapes (just for views, mind you) and refusing to take them down when ordered to... also not outing gay people. In other words, a bit of common decency. There is a monumental difference between that and writing a negative article. The “chilling” effect is not self imploding your news organization by doing stupid things over and over.
    - aphexbr 9y ago
      Actually, the chilling effect is due to that the lawsuit against Gawker only went as far as it did because Hogan teamed up with Peter Thiel, who had a personal vendetta against them over a story they had written about him. By all accounts, the issue was going nowhere until he got involved and funded Hogan. Thiel has now turned his attention on other outlets, currently attacking Techdirt for the (true) stories they wrote about Shiva Ayyaduria (who Thiel was also helping in a lawsuit against Gawker, among numerous other suits he was financing). That's the important part here - lots of lawsuits, some much more frivolous than others - were being launched because a billionaire doesn't like the outlet. If the Hogan case didn't bury them, he had plenty more lined up until something did. What's being exposed is a situation where pissing off the wrong guy can bury companies in court (and legal fees even if they're found innocent), and that it's too easy for one rich guy with a vendetta to do this. The issue is muddied because Gawker were clearly in the wrong, both legally and morally, with the Hogan tape. But, this will still have a chilling effect on people writing factually and morally correct articles if they fear they'll piss off the wrong guy. That's the issue - Thiel is going around trying to shut down media outlets he doesn't like, the fact that Gawker were a horrible outlet to begin with doesn't negate that. "There is a monumental difference between that and writing a negative article." Yes, and his current target wrote negative articles about his current client, articles that are backed by solid evidence that they are true. Nothing Techdirt has said is demonstrably false, and their attacks on Shiva's claims are always backed by verifiable evidence. The Techdirt case is far more defensible than the Gawker one, but the same principles apply, as does the chilling effect it will be having on other outlets.
- willbw 9y ago
  You're not the only one.
- Overtonwindow 9y ago
  Gawker died because when someone asked if they had any decency, any concern and respect for a person's private life, they responded with a resounding absolutely not. Gawker died because they basically became the media version of Roy Cohn.
  - scriptproof 9y ago
    https://www.hiti.fr/2016/images/hulk-hogan-gawker.jpg https://www.hiti.fr/2016/images/hulk-hogan-gawker.jpg They were a bit arrogant.
- awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
  > but Gawker died because of Gawker, not just because some rich guy went after them. No. Gawker died because of a billionaire who wanted to take it down and the mass PR firm he hired to get people on his side on social media. Also, the top comments on this thread are repeating the same lies over and over again. > publishing an illegaly-obtained sex tape in its entirety Was it illegal? Then why isn't the gawker people in prison? > and refusing to take it down after a judge orders to do so? They have a right to refuse an unconstitutional order and their refusal was vindicated by the courts. "The injunction was quickly stayed on appeal, and was denied in 2014 by the appeals court, which ruled that under the circumstances it was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech under the First Amendment." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker The courts ruled that the judge's injunction violated FIRST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH RIGHTS. The top comments in this thread repeat the same debunked lies over and over again. But I guess that's the power of billionaires and their PR firms. A lie repeated over and over again becomes the truth?
  - openasocket 9y ago
    You have the right to appeal a temporary injunction for your sex tape and publish it without the approval of the subject, but people also have the right to judge you for that. You're also ignoring the part where Gawker lost at trial. They lost because the Gawker editor admitted under cross-examination he did not believe a depiction of Hulk Hogan's genitals had any "news value." On a more personal note, I really don't see any difference between this case and "revenge porn" cases.
    - awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
      > You have the right to appeal a temporary injunction for your sex tape and publish it without the approval of the subject I know. That's my point. Not only that, the appeals court ruled in favor of gawkers. > but people also have the right to judge you for that. Sure... >You're also ignoring the part where Gawker lost at trial. No I'm not. I actually addressed it. > They lost because the Gawker editor admitted under cross-examination he did not believe a depiction of Hulk Hogan's genitals had any "news value." No. That's not why they lost. Trials are FICKLE. > On a more personal note, I really don't see any difference between this case and "revenge porn" cases. What does this have to do with "revenge porn"?
alphabettsy 9y ago
As a media group they did some incredibly shady stuff, I recall Gizmodo obtaining a lost iPhone prototype instead of encouraging the finder to return it.
- lawnchair_larry 9y ago
  That's not shady in the least. That's journalism. They got the early scoop because someone left it in a bar. The fact that Apple's hype machine wants it to be a surprise isn't a consumer tech blog's problem.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    Not if it's someone else's property, and you take it for your own purposes rather than hand it in to the bar/law.
    - lawnchair_larry 9y ago
      That isn't what happened. Nor is it the case that they discouraged the finder from returning it. Finder tried to locate the owner, and then contacted Apple multiple times, eventually getting a support case opened that went nowhere. So, Gizmodo said they would return it to Apple, and paid the finder. Then they promptly returned it to Apple, directly contacting the employee who lost it and making arrangements. J: You work at Apple, right? G: Um, I mean I can't really talk too much right now. J: I understand. We have a device, and we think that maybe you misplaced it at a bar, and we would like to give it back.
      - Chris2048 9y ago
        I'm not suggesting they didn't return it, but that they specifically didn't hand it in. Why did they have to hunt down the owner? There's no reason they had to maintain possession. > Finder tried to locate the owner, and then contacted Apple multiple times Give it to the police. No consumer-electronics publication required. Is this the device? : http://gizmodo.com/5520164/this-is-apples-next-iphone http://gizmodo.com/5520164/this-is-apples-next-iphone They take the thing apart? So they "said they would return it", but not before taking the opportunity to fully evaluate the thing they decided to keep hold of? Also, how diligent were they as self-appointed owner-finders?: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/7731500/Steve-Jobs-personally-asked-Gizmodo-to-return-secret-iPhone-prototype-to-Apple.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/7731500/Steve-Jo... https://www.cnet.com/uk/news/how-gizmodo-escaped-indictment-in-iphone-prototype-deal/ https://www.cnet.com/uk/news/how-gizmodo-escaped-indictment-... It's not Gizmodo's business to handle lost property, especially when they intend to gain something from the possession.
jgacook 9y ago
Gawker posted a sex tape of Hulk Hogan online, without his consent, and refused to take it down. It was a tape that the Gawker editor who posted it had to admit in court had no news value. It's pretty disgusting to hear WaPo hand-wring over rape culture without addressing the fact that Gawker's non-consensual posting of two people's sex act is the very definition of rape culture. Peter Thiel is an unlikeable human for many reasons, but let's not forget that Gawker also outed him as gay without his permission. WaPo skips over that too. It sounds like the outcome of Hogan v. Gawker is that news media - and especially the ream of online-only "news" sites that have sprouted over the past decade - are far more likely to fact check their stories before they publish stories that only serve to humiliate and degrade their subjects. Sexual predator or not, slow coverage of the R. Kelly debacle can hardly be pinned on Hulk Hogan holding Gawker accountable for their actions.
- rasz 9y ago
  >the outcome of Hogan v. Gawker is Lets not forget techdirt being sued by "email" fraud Shiva Ayyadurai with money won by Thiel lawyer.
- tptacek 9y ago
  I agree: my attitude towards the Thiel/Hogan/Gawker fiasco was, as someone else put it, first they came for Gawker, and I said nothing, because fuck Gawker. But what's your point? The Gawker fiasco absolutely did spook other media outlets and has made them nervous about publishing negative stories about other media figures. That's what WaPo is observing here.
  - jameskegel 9y ago
    This is a flimsy comparison
    - tptacek 9y ago
      I don't see how. DeRogatis has decades of experience as a music writer, including at Rolling Stone and The Chicago Tribune. His story ran in Buzzfeed. It ran there, and not in a more mainstream publication, because it directly attacked a media personality with deep pockets. The headline is false, like I said downthread: the story would have run somewhere else. But the story seems entirely valid.
throwaway0to1 9y ago
> Peter Thiel is an unlikeable human for many reasons... Care to elaborate? I always thought he was just a startup investor, albeit a very successful one.
- somedangedname 9y ago
  In his own words: "Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible" https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
  - Simon_says 9y ago
    This is a pretty run of the mill opinion in Libertarian circles. As a Libertarian, it's hard not to feel that way as you see decades of what the majority of people vote for and what the majority of people put up with in their elected officials. Unless your argument is that Libertarians, generally, are unlikable, in which case, you may have a point ...
    - somedangedname 9y ago
      People vote wrong so take their votes away?
      - Simon_says 9y ago
        I'm totally with you, but if you read the article, this wasn't Thiel's argument. His solution was to establish societies in new frontiers: Cyberspace, the Ocean, and Space.
  - hoorayimhelping 9y ago
    I tend to agree with him. Look at what happens whenever we put things to a popular vote in this country. Even in places that re known as being very liberal, like California, half the population regularly votes against gay marriage and marijuana legalization. Either way, someone expressing a loss of belief in something makes them unlikable? You don't like Peter Thiel because he's become cynical about democracy?
Overtonwindow 9y ago
The Gawker Effect is that journalists are now, for perhaps the first time in modern history, contemplating if a news story that is going to print is actually news, or merely gossip. I don't think the Hogan or Kelly stories should have been printed. They're gossip about someone's private life. Even if they're in the public eye, I think they do deserve privacy, and media publications should avoid reporting on what happens in bedrooms.
- yellowapple 9y ago
  I think the Kelly story is valid, since it does involve behavior that might very well be illegal. The Hogan "story", however, should indeed have never seen the light of day.
  - Overtonwindow 9y ago
    I agree, and when the media reports on something that may be illegal, or harmful to the public, that's news. A videotape of a man's private sex life is not news.
NietTim 9y ago
Author complaining about chilling effect after venomous 'journalists' that have outed someone as gay before, publish a sex tape without consent. I honestly can't feel sorry. And the fact that this journo from wapo is only victim blaming doesn't surprise me one bit.
- a2tech 9y ago
  Gawker didn't 'out' Peter Thiel. Everyone in the valley had known for years that he was gay. They posted a link to his public tumblr account that showed him cavorting with young men in exotic locales.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    Fine, they made his sexual orientation more widely known.
    - rurban 9y ago
      Hardly. The last time I was in the valley was over 30 years ago, and I still knew from Europe that Thiel is gay. Not that I cared about that, only about his hardcore libertarianism, german roots, questionable investments and chess skills. Eg the New Yorker outed him 2011 http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/28/no-death-no-taxes http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/28/no-death-no-tax...
AJRF 9y ago
What I read between the lines here was that publications will fact check they story and ensure that before they publish the story has actual value? News Media has really lost its way, it needs shook up bigtime.
smegel 9y ago
God it would be amazing if BuzzFeed was destroyed after Gawker was hulked to death.
- magic_beans 9y ago
  BuzzFeed has a lot of BS, but they really do support quality journalism as well.
- islanderfun 9y ago
  Generally curious, how come? I believe I understand why Gawker was disliked. But I must have missed out on BuzzFeed.
Zafira 9y ago
I feel like virtually all of the comments here are focusing on the fact that Gawker, as a company, was generally unethical and harmed a lot of people for no good reason. This is not the point. Hulk Hogan is entirely moot to the issue at hand. Hogan's case was just a vehicle for Thiel's goal of getting back at a company who had written articles that he disliked. What Thiel did was to tell people with deep enough pockets to see that it's possible to destroy someone for writing articles that they disagree with. The case was structured to ensure that Gawker could not rely on insurance for paying certain damages and that people became personally liable for the damages arising from the case[1]. So, imagine that Warren Buffet dislikes an expose in the Chicago Tribune about him. He then waits for someone to have a grievance against them and then tells that person that he'll provide all the financial resources to drag this case on for years and refuse to settle or repeatedly finds various proxy parties and repeats this behavior. Tronc is then forced to sell assets to keep afloat while dealing with this litigation. Thiel's behavior shows this works and that most people seem okay with it. That's the problem. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/business/media/nick-denton-gawker-bankruptcy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/business/media/nick-dento...
- nailer 9y ago
  Gawker wasn't sued for writing articles people disagree with. They were sued for publishing someone else's sex tape without their permission. Most people (journalists excepted) are OK with taking down a company for publishing someone else's sex tape without their permission. Aren't you?
  - michaelt 9y ago
    Sure, they were sued for publishing someone else's sex tape. But the reason they were put out of business - rather than reaching a settlement or paying out from insurance - is because Peter Thiel had a (arguably justifiable) grudge against them.
    - ThomPete 9y ago
      But that's not a lesson that's very valuable. What is valuable though is to learn that it requires money to win over media. Who knows how many other peoples lives have been destroyed by not being able to afford taking media to court. Thats relevant, whether Thiel had a grudge is not important many people have grudges and take other people to court over it.
NTripleOne 9y ago
I'll be honest, the only R. Kelly cult story I care about is Trapped in the Closet - seriously, even if that's not your scene, watch it, you won't regret it. I think currently it stands at about 3-4 hours of comedy gold, whether it's intended to be or not is another subject entirely...
honestoHeminway 9y ago
The real horror-story is, how some parents educate there children to be such authority puppets, that anyone speaking a little louder can hold force and influence over them. Thats a attack on free society, right there, weak individuals because so much easier to control, to educate and far fewer suprises.
EddieSpeaks 9y ago
Boo-effing-hoo, the off chance that someone contacts a sleazy publication for a real story is far too little to gain from a filthy publication that engages in unethical practices and blackmail to advance its political agenda. If the Hulk Hogan fiasco was anything, it forced publications to rethink their god-like superpowers when it comes to people's reputations.
mrkrabo 9y ago
Given the abnormally high % of homosexuals with mental illnesses, which rises to an insanely high % if we talk about transexuals, what makes you think homosexuals are able to give consent in a sane and healthy way?
- untog 9y ago
  Ah, OK, you're an idiot. Didn't realise. No point wasting my time on a conversation like this. I hope that one day you are able to realise just how absurd a human being you are.
- dang 9y ago
  We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14892977 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14892977 and marked it off-topic.

95 points by iamjeff 9y ago

Well. It almost never ran in Buzzfeed (or the other 3 outfits DeRogatis pitched it to). But it certainly would have run! DeRogatis has been on the R. Kelly beat ever since he broke the original story about Kelly's statutory rape. He didn't report this story on a whim. One way or the other, it would have gotten out, and it would have gotten attention. Not only that, but it's possible the story would have been better, or at least sharper: Buzzfeed's lawyers cut back the allegations.

endgame 9y ago

Gawker didn't have to defy a judge and leave the sex tape up. Why is the author blaming the victim here?

austenallred 9y ago

Am I the only one who sees a major difference between publishing a negative story about someone and publishing an illegaly-obtained sex tape in its entirety, and refusing to take it down after a judge orders to do so? I get the concern that blowback a could happen, but Gawker died because of Gawker, not just because some rich guy went after them.

slaveofallah93 9y ago
I don't think you are the only one. I imagine the courts would have the same opinion.
spinlock 9y ago
This is what's called a "chilling effect." Sure, the next paper might not get put out of business if Tiel decideds to sue them, but an editor could loose his job for publishing the story that pissed him off.
- MBCook 9y ago
  But people should be blaming Gawker not Tiel.
- CrystalLangUser 9y ago
  Do you understand the situation with Gawker at all? The “chilling” effect is really just not publishing private sex tapes (just for views, mind you) and refusing to take them down when ordered to... also not outing gay people. In other words, a bit of common decency. There is a monumental difference between that and writing a negative article. The “chilling” effect is not self imploding your news organization by doing stupid things over and over.
  - aphexbr 9y ago
    Actually, the chilling effect is due to that the lawsuit against Gawker only went as far as it did because Hogan teamed up with Peter Thiel, who had a personal vendetta against them over a story they had written about him. By all accounts, the issue was going nowhere until he got involved and funded Hogan. Thiel has now turned his attention on other outlets, currently attacking Techdirt for the (true) stories they wrote about Shiva Ayyaduria (who Thiel was also helping in a lawsuit against Gawker, among numerous other suits he was financing). That's the important part here - lots of lawsuits, some much more frivolous than others - were being launched because a billionaire doesn't like the outlet. If the Hogan case didn't bury them, he had plenty more lined up until something did. What's being exposed is a situation where pissing off the wrong guy can bury companies in court (and legal fees even if they're found innocent), and that it's too easy for one rich guy with a vendetta to do this. The issue is muddied because Gawker were clearly in the wrong, both legally and morally, with the Hogan tape. But, this will still have a chilling effect on people writing factually and morally correct articles if they fear they'll piss off the wrong guy. That's the issue - Thiel is going around trying to shut down media outlets he doesn't like, the fact that Gawker were a horrible outlet to begin with doesn't negate that. "There is a monumental difference between that and writing a negative article." Yes, and his current target wrote negative articles about his current client, articles that are backed by solid evidence that they are true. Nothing Techdirt has said is demonstrably false, and their attacks on Shiva's claims are always backed by verifiable evidence. The Techdirt case is far more defensible than the Gawker one, but the same principles apply, as does the chilling effect it will be having on other outlets.
willbw 9y ago
You're not the only one.
Overtonwindow 9y ago
Gawker died because when someone asked if they had any decency, any concern and respect for a person's private life, they responded with a resounding absolutely not. Gawker died because they basically became the media version of Roy Cohn.
- scriptproof 9y ago
  https://www.hiti.fr/2016/images/hulk-hogan-gawker.jpg https://www.hiti.fr/2016/images/hulk-hogan-gawker.jpg They were a bit arrogant.
awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
> but Gawker died because of Gawker, not just because some rich guy went after them. No. Gawker died because of a billionaire who wanted to take it down and the mass PR firm he hired to get people on his side on social media. Also, the top comments on this thread are repeating the same lies over and over again. > publishing an illegaly-obtained sex tape in its entirety Was it illegal? Then why isn't the gawker people in prison? > and refusing to take it down after a judge orders to do so? They have a right to refuse an unconstitutional order and their refusal was vindicated by the courts. "The injunction was quickly stayed on appeal, and was denied in 2014 by the appeals court, which ruled that under the circumstances it was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech under the First Amendment." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker The courts ruled that the judge's injunction violated FIRST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH RIGHTS. The top comments in this thread repeat the same debunked lies over and over again. But I guess that's the power of billionaires and their PR firms. A lie repeated over and over again becomes the truth?
- openasocket 9y ago
  You have the right to appeal a temporary injunction for your sex tape and publish it without the approval of the subject, but people also have the right to judge you for that. You're also ignoring the part where Gawker lost at trial. They lost because the Gawker editor admitted under cross-examination he did not believe a depiction of Hulk Hogan's genitals had any "news value." On a more personal note, I really don't see any difference between this case and "revenge porn" cases.
  - awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
    > You have the right to appeal a temporary injunction for your sex tape and publish it without the approval of the subject I know. That's my point. Not only that, the appeals court ruled in favor of gawkers. > but people also have the right to judge you for that. Sure... >You're also ignoring the part where Gawker lost at trial. No I'm not. I actually addressed it. > They lost because the Gawker editor admitted under cross-examination he did not believe a depiction of Hulk Hogan's genitals had any "news value." No. That's not why they lost. Trials are FICKLE. > On a more personal note, I really don't see any difference between this case and "revenge porn" cases. What does this have to do with "revenge porn"?

alphabettsy 9y ago

As a media group they did some incredibly shady stuff, I recall Gizmodo obtaining a lost iPhone prototype instead of encouraging the finder to return it.

lawnchair_larry 9y ago
That's not shady in the least. That's journalism. They got the early scoop because someone left it in a bar. The fact that Apple's hype machine wants it to be a surprise isn't a consumer tech blog's problem.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  Not if it's someone else's property, and you take it for your own purposes rather than hand it in to the bar/law.
  - lawnchair_larry 9y ago
    That isn't what happened. Nor is it the case that they discouraged the finder from returning it. Finder tried to locate the owner, and then contacted Apple multiple times, eventually getting a support case opened that went nowhere. So, Gizmodo said they would return it to Apple, and paid the finder. Then they promptly returned it to Apple, directly contacting the employee who lost it and making arrangements. J: You work at Apple, right? G: Um, I mean I can't really talk too much right now. J: I understand. We have a device, and we think that maybe you misplaced it at a bar, and we would like to give it back.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      I'm not suggesting they didn't return it, but that they specifically didn't hand it in. Why did they have to hunt down the owner? There's no reason they had to maintain possession. > Finder tried to locate the owner, and then contacted Apple multiple times Give it to the police. No consumer-electronics publication required. Is this the device? : http://gizmodo.com/5520164/this-is-apples-next-iphone http://gizmodo.com/5520164/this-is-apples-next-iphone They take the thing apart? So they "said they would return it", but not before taking the opportunity to fully evaluate the thing they decided to keep hold of? Also, how diligent were they as self-appointed owner-finders?: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/7731500/Steve-Jobs-personally-asked-Gizmodo-to-return-secret-iPhone-prototype-to-Apple.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/7731500/Steve-Jo... https://www.cnet.com/uk/news/how-gizmodo-escaped-indictment-in-iphone-prototype-deal/ https://www.cnet.com/uk/news/how-gizmodo-escaped-indictment-... It's not Gizmodo's business to handle lost property, especially when they intend to gain something from the possession.

jgacook 9y ago

Gawker posted a sex tape of Hulk Hogan online, without his consent, and refused to take it down. It was a tape that the Gawker editor who posted it had to admit in court had no news value. It's pretty disgusting to hear WaPo hand-wring over rape culture without addressing the fact that Gawker's non-consensual posting of two people's sex act is the very definition of rape culture. Peter Thiel is an unlikeable human for many reasons, but let's not forget that Gawker also outed him as gay without his permission. WaPo skips over that too. It sounds like the outcome of Hogan v. Gawker is that news media - and especially the ream of online-only "news" sites that have sprouted over the past decade - are far more likely to fact check their stories before they publish stories that only serve to humiliate and degrade their subjects. Sexual predator or not, slow coverage of the R. Kelly debacle can hardly be pinned on Hulk Hogan holding Gawker accountable for their actions.

rasz 9y ago
>the outcome of Hogan v. Gawker is Lets not forget techdirt being sued by "email" fraud Shiva Ayyadurai with money won by Thiel lawyer.
tptacek 9y ago
I agree: my attitude towards the Thiel/Hogan/Gawker fiasco was, as someone else put it, first they came for Gawker, and I said nothing, because fuck Gawker. But what's your point? The Gawker fiasco absolutely did spook other media outlets and has made them nervous about publishing negative stories about other media figures. That's what WaPo is observing here.
- jameskegel 9y ago
  This is a flimsy comparison
  - tptacek 9y ago
    I don't see how. DeRogatis has decades of experience as a music writer, including at Rolling Stone and The Chicago Tribune. His story ran in Buzzfeed. It ran there, and not in a more mainstream publication, because it directly attacked a media personality with deep pockets. The headline is false, like I said downthread: the story would have run somewhere else. But the story seems entirely valid.

throwaway0to1 9y ago

> Peter Thiel is an unlikeable human for many reasons... Care to elaborate? I always thought he was just a startup investor, albeit a very successful one.

somedangedname 9y ago
In his own words: "Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible" https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
- Simon_says 9y ago
  This is a pretty run of the mill opinion in Libertarian circles. As a Libertarian, it's hard not to feel that way as you see decades of what the majority of people vote for and what the majority of people put up with in their elected officials. Unless your argument is that Libertarians, generally, are unlikable, in which case, you may have a point ...
  - somedangedname 9y ago
    People vote wrong so take their votes away?
    - Simon_says 9y ago
      I'm totally with you, but if you read the article, this wasn't Thiel's argument. His solution was to establish societies in new frontiers: Cyberspace, the Ocean, and Space.
- hoorayimhelping 9y ago
  I tend to agree with him. Look at what happens whenever we put things to a popular vote in this country. Even in places that re known as being very liberal, like California, half the population regularly votes against gay marriage and marijuana legalization. Either way, someone expressing a loss of belief in something makes them unlikable? You don't like Peter Thiel because he's become cynical about democracy?

Overtonwindow 9y ago

The Gawker Effect is that journalists are now, for perhaps the first time in modern history, contemplating if a news story that is going to print is actually news, or merely gossip. I don't think the Hogan or Kelly stories should have been printed. They're gossip about someone's private life. Even if they're in the public eye, I think they do deserve privacy, and media publications should avoid reporting on what happens in bedrooms.

yellowapple 9y ago
I think the Kelly story is valid, since it does involve behavior that might very well be illegal. The Hogan "story", however, should indeed have never seen the light of day.
- Overtonwindow 9y ago
  I agree, and when the media reports on something that may be illegal, or harmful to the public, that's news. A videotape of a man's private sex life is not news.

NietTim 9y ago

Author complaining about chilling effect after venomous 'journalists' that have outed someone as gay before, publish a sex tape without consent. I honestly can't feel sorry. And the fact that this journo from wapo is only victim blaming doesn't surprise me one bit.

a2tech 9y ago
Gawker didn't 'out' Peter Thiel. Everyone in the valley had known for years that he was gay. They posted a link to his public tumblr account that showed him cavorting with young men in exotic locales.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  Fine, they made his sexual orientation more widely known.
  - rurban 9y ago
    Hardly. The last time I was in the valley was over 30 years ago, and I still knew from Europe that Thiel is gay. Not that I cared about that, only about his hardcore libertarianism, german roots, questionable investments and chess skills. Eg the New Yorker outed him 2011 http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/28/no-death-no-taxes http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/28/no-death-no-tax...

AJRF 9y ago

What I read between the lines here was that publications will fact check they story and ensure that before they publish the story has actual value? News Media has really lost its way, it needs shook up bigtime.

smegel 9y ago

God it would be amazing if BuzzFeed was destroyed after Gawker was hulked to death.

magic_beans 9y ago
BuzzFeed has a lot of BS, but they really do support quality journalism as well.
islanderfun 9y ago
Generally curious, how come? I believe I understand why Gawker was disliked. But I must have missed out on BuzzFeed.

Zafira 9y ago

I feel like virtually all of the comments here are focusing on the fact that Gawker, as a company, was generally unethical and harmed a lot of people for no good reason. This is not the point. Hulk Hogan is entirely moot to the issue at hand. Hogan's case was just a vehicle for Thiel's goal of getting back at a company who had written articles that he disliked. What Thiel did was to tell people with deep enough pockets to see that it's possible to destroy someone for writing articles that they disagree with. The case was structured to ensure that Gawker could not rely on insurance for paying certain damages and that people became personally liable for the damages arising from the case[1]. So, imagine that Warren Buffet dislikes an expose in the Chicago Tribune about him. He then waits for someone to have a grievance against them and then tells that person that he'll provide all the financial resources to drag this case on for years and refuse to settle or repeatedly finds various proxy parties and repeats this behavior. Tronc is then forced to sell assets to keep afloat while dealing with this litigation. Thiel's behavior shows this works and that most people seem okay with it. That's the problem. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/business/media/nick-denton-gawker-bankruptcy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/business/media/nick-dento...

nailer 9y ago
Gawker wasn't sued for writing articles people disagree with. They were sued for publishing someone else's sex tape without their permission. Most people (journalists excepted) are OK with taking down a company for publishing someone else's sex tape without their permission. Aren't you?
- michaelt 9y ago
  Sure, they were sued for publishing someone else's sex tape. But the reason they were put out of business - rather than reaching a settlement or paying out from insurance - is because Peter Thiel had a (arguably justifiable) grudge against them.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    But that's not a lesson that's very valuable. What is valuable though is to learn that it requires money to win over media. Who knows how many other peoples lives have been destroyed by not being able to afford taking media to court. Thats relevant, whether Thiel had a grudge is not important many people have grudges and take other people to court over it.

NTripleOne 9y ago

I'll be honest, the only R. Kelly cult story I care about is Trapped in the Closet - seriously, even if that's not your scene, watch it, you won't regret it. I think currently it stands at about 3-4 hours of comedy gold, whether it's intended to be or not is another subject entirely...

honestoHeminway 9y ago

The real horror-story is, how some parents educate there children to be such authority puppets, that anyone speaking a little louder can hold force and influence over them. Thats a attack on free society, right there, weak individuals because so much easier to control, to educate and far fewer suprises.

EddieSpeaks 9y ago

Boo-effing-hoo, the off chance that someone contacts a sleazy publication for a real story is far too little to gain from a filthy publication that engages in unethical practices and blackmail to advance its political agenda. If the Hulk Hogan fiasco was anything, it forced publications to rethink their god-like superpowers when it comes to people's reputations.

mrkrabo 9y ago

Given the abnormally high % of homosexuals with mental illnesses, which rises to an insanely high % if we talk about transexuals, what makes you think homosexuals are able to give consent in a sane and healthy way?

untog 9y ago
Ah, OK, you're an idiot. Didn't realise. No point wasting my time on a conversation like this. I hope that one day you are able to realise just how absurd a human being you are.
dang 9y ago
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14892977 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14892977 and marked it off-topic.