7 ms·

The point is that trying to claim that being held to account for posting the illegally obtained sex tape of a celebrity which has no actual news value outside o

by jgon 9y ago

The point is that trying to claim that being held to account for posting the illegally obtained sex tape of a celebrity which has no actual news value outside of the lurid value of watching a public figure have sex is literally, and I cannot stress that enough, literally nothing like the act of posting a well researched article about the damaging actions of a public figure, engaged in something that is possibly illegal. Trying to in someway make people feel bad for Gawker by somehow saying that their entirely self-imposed destruction is making it hard for actual news with real value to be published is super disingenuous. If other news outlets got nervous about publishing legitimate investigations into the actions of public figures, that's on them. The protections the press receives in America are robust, and the Gawker case was so newsworthy because it was an actual instance of the press "losing" for once in one of these case, and only because their actions were incredibly egregious. In summary, the article tries to drum up some sort of phony sympathy for the actions of Gawker by somehow linking worthwhile reporting with the muck-racking dreck that Gawker traded in and ultimately was killed by.

tptacek 9y ago
I don't think the author of this piece wants you to feel sympathy for Gawker, but rather to recognize that the post-Gawker media landscape is different and more difficult for reporters. And again: this story reports that we don't even know what was in DeRogatis' original piece. Buzzfeed's legal cut things out of it. When we say "a well-researched piece like this is fine post-Gawker", we should recognize that we don't know if DeRogatis' original reporting even survived the editing process.
- jgon 9y ago
  How is it more difficult for reporters? If you are not posting actual libelous material obtained illegally, which has no value to the public, you are in the clear. If you are doing those things, then yeah I guess the Gawker case should make you think twice. Like is this a bad outcome? What do I need to recognize here? That finally yellow journalism online is held to the same standard as in print? Oh no, the horror!
  - tptacek 9y ago
    You mean, as long as you're not posting material that someone can claim is libelous or has no value.
    - slavik81 9y ago
      Gawker was not destroyed by merely fighting a lawsuit. They were destroyed by losing a lawsuit. They were bankrupted by damages only after the court heard both sides in detail and concluded the plaintiff's claim was legitimate.
    - sdoering 9y ago
      Well then you should have your proof in order and let the court decide. That's what a justice system is for. As someone having the ability to ruin anybody with what you type into a keyboard you should be held to as high a standard as possible. I worked in this environment years ago and I still feel tainted by association. Imho most of the so called free press has no right to be privileged at all. What I would call journalism on the other hand should be able to operate unharmed and as free as possible (but as said above) nor unchecked.
    - mmjaa 9y ago
      One claim is as good as another. Why should those who have mass-media powers claims' be considered more valid than those who don't have these powers?
      - pvg 9y ago
        One claim is as good as another. They aren't, which is why we have things like journalism.
        mmjaa 9y ago
        .. and thats why its good when those claims that are less valid are called out as such, especially from so-called 'journalistic sources' who should know better if they wish to keep their coveted spot by the throne.
- yellowapple 9y ago
  I would be more inclined to agree with your assessment if WaPo didn't go out of its way to connect Hulk Hogan's case with Peter Thiel with a very negative tone - one which reeked of "Hulk Hogan was associated with this person who we don't like so therefore the Hulk got what was coming and Gawker was totally justified and thanks to the Big Bad Hulk there's a guy sexually manipulating young women" type of troll-logical train of thought. Yes, the landscape is different, as it damn well should be.
  - uncletaco 9y ago
    I think we should stop taking the opinion of one columnist and mapping that to the opinion of an entire news organization, unless that organization is The Economist and obscures who actually wrote the story. This article is columnist Margaret Sullivan's opinion.
    - Neliquat 9y ago
      I too, have an opinion. But WaPo is not going to publish it unless it is in line with their beliefs as an org. They published it, it reflects on them.
    - yellowapple 9y ago
      I'm certainly not seeing one of those "this article does not reflect the views of the Washington Post" disclaimers. Without that, considering that this was published by the Washington Post on the Washington Post website, "taking the opinion of one columnist and mapping that to the opinion of an entire news organization" is completely warranted.
      - uncletaco 9y ago
        > Margaret Sullivan is The Washington Post’s media columnist. Previously, she was The New York Times public editor, and the chief editor of The Buffalo News, her hometown paper.[1] > A columnist is someone who writes for publication in a series, creating an article that usually offers commentary and opinions. Columns appear in newspapers, magazines and other publications, including blogs. They take the form of a short essay by a specific writer who offers a personal point of view. In some instances, a column has been written by a composite or a team, appearing under a pseudonym, or (in effect) a brand name. Some columnists appear on a daily or weekly basis and later reprint the same material in book collections.[2] The first quote is from the author's blurb at the bottom of OP's post. The second is straight from the definition of Columnist. I think her disclosure was adequate, as it assumes those reading her story understand that columnists' jobs are to give their own commentary. [1.] Scroll to the bottom of the OP's article and you'll see the author's name and role at the WaPo. [2.] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columnist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columnist

by jgon 9y ago

tptacek 9y ago

I don't think the author of this piece wants you to feel sympathy for Gawker, but rather to recognize that the post-Gawker media landscape is different and more difficult for reporters. And again: this story reports that we don't even know what was in DeRogatis' original piece. Buzzfeed's legal cut things out of it. When we say "a well-researched piece like this is fine post-Gawker", we should recognize that we don't know if DeRogatis' original reporting even survived the editing process.

jgon 9y ago
How is it more difficult for reporters? If you are not posting actual libelous material obtained illegally, which has no value to the public, you are in the clear. If you are doing those things, then yeah I guess the Gawker case should make you think twice. Like is this a bad outcome? What do I need to recognize here? That finally yellow journalism online is held to the same standard as in print? Oh no, the horror!
- tptacek 9y ago
  You mean, as long as you're not posting material that someone can claim is libelous or has no value.
  - slavik81 9y ago
    Gawker was not destroyed by merely fighting a lawsuit. They were destroyed by losing a lawsuit. They were bankrupted by damages only after the court heard both sides in detail and concluded the plaintiff's claim was legitimate.
  - sdoering 9y ago
    Well then you should have your proof in order and let the court decide. That's what a justice system is for. As someone having the ability to ruin anybody with what you type into a keyboard you should be held to as high a standard as possible. I worked in this environment years ago and I still feel tainted by association. Imho most of the so called free press has no right to be privileged at all. What I would call journalism on the other hand should be able to operate unharmed and as free as possible (but as said above) nor unchecked.
  - mmjaa 9y ago
    One claim is as good as another. Why should those who have mass-media powers claims' be considered more valid than those who don't have these powers?
    - pvg 9y ago
      One claim is as good as another. They aren't, which is why we have things like journalism.
      - mmjaa 9y ago
        .. and thats why its good when those claims that are less valid are called out as such, especially from so-called 'journalistic sources' who should know better if they wish to keep their coveted spot by the throne.
yellowapple 9y ago
I would be more inclined to agree with your assessment if WaPo didn't go out of its way to connect Hulk Hogan's case with Peter Thiel with a very negative tone - one which reeked of "Hulk Hogan was associated with this person who we don't like so therefore the Hulk got what was coming and Gawker was totally justified and thanks to the Big Bad Hulk there's a guy sexually manipulating young women" type of troll-logical train of thought. Yes, the landscape is different, as it damn well should be.
- uncletaco 9y ago
  I think we should stop taking the opinion of one columnist and mapping that to the opinion of an entire news organization, unless that organization is The Economist and obscures who actually wrote the story. This article is columnist Margaret Sullivan's opinion.
  - Neliquat 9y ago
    I too, have an opinion. But WaPo is not going to publish it unless it is in line with their beliefs as an org. They published it, it reflects on them.
  - yellowapple 9y ago
    I'm certainly not seeing one of those "this article does not reflect the views of the Washington Post" disclaimers. Without that, considering that this was published by the Washington Post on the Washington Post website, "taking the opinion of one columnist and mapping that to the opinion of an entire news organization" is completely warranted.
    - uncletaco 9y ago
      > Margaret Sullivan is The Washington Post’s media columnist. Previously, she was The New York Times public editor, and the chief editor of The Buffalo News, her hometown paper.[1] > A columnist is someone who writes for publication in a series, creating an article that usually offers commentary and opinions. Columns appear in newspapers, magazines and other publications, including blogs. They take the form of a short essay by a specific writer who offers a personal point of view. In some instances, a column has been written by a composite or a team, appearing under a pseudonym, or (in effect) a brand name. Some columnists appear on a daily or weekly basis and later reprint the same material in book collections.[2] The first quote is from the author's blurb at the bottom of OP's post. The second is straight from the definition of Columnist. I think her disclosure was adequate, as it assumes those reading her story understand that columnists' jobs are to give their own commentary. [1.] Scroll to the bottom of the OP's article and you'll see the author's name and role at the WaPo. [2.] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columnist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columnist