-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Gawker has been gone for a year. Weve never needed it more than now. (WaPo)
- Thread starter ryseing
- Start date
NYCmetsfan
Banned
First of all this isn't and wasn't the gawker ethos.You know, maybe if the head of Gawker hadn't felt compelled to make a joke about leaking sex tapes of four-year-olds while in a deposition Gawker would still be around to shotgun feces from its worthless cloaca. Gawker's brand of flippant, nihilistic cynicism is not the antidote we need to the Trump era.
But this is what I'm talking about. Somehow a random comment by an author is reason for an entire journalism outfit to be taken down. Its an argument not based on any logic or even principle beyond the fact that people are supposed to dislike it do to a bunch of reprieve talking points which completely skirt around the issues at hand and turn the whole thing into a exercise in propriety
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Gawker did some fine things vastly outweighed by their mistakes. If you care about journalism then you are worried much more about the 1 thing they got terribly wrong than the 999 things they got right.
Terrible leadership, costly for the industry, and damaging to journalism itself. They invented nothing and deserve zero credit.
Also yes NYT deserves the side eye it will get for Iraq and Her Emails for the rest of time. No excuses.
Terrible leadership, costly for the industry, and damaging to journalism itself. They invented nothing and deserve zero credit.
Also yes NYT deserves the side eye it will get for Iraq and Her Emails for the rest of time. No excuses.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
122 Pulitzer Prizes objective enough?
You need to step away from the keyboard for a bit.
This doesn't address my argument. The times has more important numerous ethical and journalistic issues. Far more than Gawker.
And the Pulitzers's aren't some infallible credibility award.
Glad we used to have an outlet that helped take many of these institutions to task
Gawker did some fine things vastly outweighed by their mistakes. If you care about journalism then you are worried much more about the 1 thing they got terribly wrong than the 999 things they got right.
Terrible leadership, costly for the industry, and damaging to journalism itself. They invented nothing and deserve zero credit.
Also yes NYT deserves the side eye it will get for Iraq and Her Emails for the rest of time. No excuses.
Nonsense. Why are their writers, largely still writing with a similar style everywhere?
rockinreelin
Member
A lot of people rip on Gawker but they developed a style of internet journalism writing that so many sites and people on the internet ape hardcore. It sorta still lives on in a more subdued manner on the old Gawker media sites still going. The problem with Gawker and it's main strength was Denton. He was smart enough to hire some good writers but didn't have the guts to come down on his editorial staff when they fucked up massively or place limits on tacky stories.
I don't want people like Peter Thiel deciding what "shitty" and "unethical" tactics are.No. Don't use shitty, unethical tactics and you'll be fine.
This again????
1) They took down the tape.
2) They didn't take down the words
3) The judge had no credible or constitutional basis for which to order them to do 2).
4) Multiple federal judges stated that the posting of the tape and text were constitutionally protected by the 1st amendment and the judge was in error as she was ordering prior restraint on speech.
And the AJ quote was from a deposition and was a flippant, disgusting response. I don't need to defend AJ's jokes. They were not "gawker"
Fair point, but there was probably a way to handle that matter with the court that wasn't a massive grandstanding opportunity as that post lavishly relishes in. I know they hated "smarminess", but indulging it a bit here may have ensured their own survival.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Nonsense. Why are their writers, largely still writing with a similar style everywhere?
Editors and editorial leadership matter and you know it. Get out of here with this entire bullshit.
Their decision outlined in that post was correct, and its correctness was even validated by a federal judge.
You know, maybe if the head of Gawker hadn't felt compelled to make a joke about leaking sex tapes of four-year-olds while in a deposition Gawker would still be around to shotgun feces from its worthless cloaca. Gawker's brand of flippant, nihilistic cynicism is not the antidote we need to the Trump era.
A.J. Daulerio wasn't an editor at Gawker when he gave that deposition.
People just lose their minds when it comes to this whole case.
This doesn't address my argument. The times has more important numerous ethical and journalistic issues. Far more than Gawker.
And the Pulitzers's aren't some infallible credibility award.
Glad we used to have an outlet that helped take many of these institutions to task
You're the one who brought up objective metrics for credibility. Please, illuminate us as to how you would objectively measure credibility to help satisfy you. And spare us any platitudes about subjectivity. You brought objectivity in credibility up in the first place. Argue in good faith.
First of all this isn't and wasn't the gawker ethos.
But this is what I'm talking about. Somehow a random comment by an author is reason for an entire journalism outfit to be taken down. Its an argument not based on any logic or even principle beyond the fact that people are supposed to dislike it do to a bunch of reprieve talking points which completely skirt around the issues at hand and turn the whole thing into a exercise in propriety
I personally am not arguing Gawker should have gone away, although many on this site might. I wish it were still around.
However, just because I liked Gawker doesn't mean I have to mindlessly agree with every ex-Gawker employee mourning it's passing as if they were some infallible entity when they absolutely were not.
Just_myles
Member
Glad they're gone(they're scummy). However, we should be afraid of the implications from rich people to sue them out of business. They should have been protected. Scummy or not. Now that the well has been poisoned who knows how many breaking stories are being held back.
Thinking optimistically about it, news entities might consider more lawyers ::shrug::
Thinking optimistically about it, news entities might consider more lawyers ::shrug::
Ninja Scooter
Member
Glad they're gone(they're scummy). However, we should be afraid of the implications from rich people to sue them out of business. They should have been protected. Scummy or not. Now that the well has been poisoned who knows how many breaking stories are being held back.
Thinking optimistically about it, news entities might consider more lawyers ::shrug::
Protected for posting revenge porn?
SecretMoblin
Member
FWIW I think the idea that Gawker didn't deserve to be taken out over Hulk Hogan's sex tape is a defensible one, but it seems like a strange bit of overcompensation when people start to claim that not only was it a journalistic outfit, it was an incredibly good, important, and credible one. It certainly wasn't.
And it's been especially sad seeing the same people cling to the wreckage of the stupid lie that this small-fries ruling in Florida was the canary in the coal mine for the death of journalism in the United States. "Fascism" and megarich overlords shuttering all but the most slavish propaganda outfits and panic and fear among the fourth estate and death and destruction for democracy. Please.
And it's been especially sad seeing the same people cling to the wreckage of the stupid lie that this small-fries ruling in Florida was the canary in the coal mine for the death of journalism in the United States. "Fascism" and megarich overlords shuttering all but the most slavish propaganda outfits and panic and fear among the fourth estate and death and destruction for democracy. Please.
moffattron9000
Member
I wish that Gawker was still running, but that's mainly because it's lead to The AV Club's death tomorrow. Fucking Kinja.
That being said, the Hulk Hogan saga is gross and horrible everywhere. I'll also gladly take Gawker's side over that racist, egotistical, WCW ruining sack of shit Hogan and Peter Thiel, who I'm mostly ambivilant on.
That being said, the Hulk Hogan saga is gross and horrible everywhere. I'll also gladly take Gawker's side over that racist, egotistical, WCW ruining sack of shit Hogan and Peter Thiel, who I'm mostly ambivilant on.
DeathoftheEndless
Crashing this plane... with no survivors!
Gawker was an unethical garbage site that got what they deserved. Its unfortunate their subsidiaries brought in a lot of that smegma.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Fuck Gawker. I have no sympathy for that rag site.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Editors and editorial leadership matter and you know it. Get out of here with this entire bullshit.
I mean I really wonder if people just through around buzz words or arguments they see around.
John Cook still works for Gizmodo Media. So does Lacey Donohue‏
Elizabeth Spiers runs a new site and was former EIC of the Observer
Choire Sicha just got hired by the NYT to run their style section
Jessica Coen runs Mashable
Alex Balk does stuff for the Awl
Emily Gould does book publishing
Gabriel Snyder ran the New Republic
Remy Stern runs the NYposts digital operations
Max Read is a senior editor for NY Mag
Alex Pareene still writes for Splinter
That's just EICs
Some of the writers in the later years of gawker have gone on to write for many outlets
Adrian Chen writes for the New Yorker
Neetzan Zimmerman works for the Hill (and is why you see so many of hill links around)
Sam Biddle writes for the Intercept
Ashley Feinberg‏ writes for Wired
Eve Peyser writes for Vice
These people keep getting hired because their good. People read their stuff. Editors and Editorial leadership matter, I agree. That's why gawker produced so many good writers and Editors
You're the one who brought up objective metrics for credibility. Please, illuminate us as to how you would objectively measure credibility to help satisfy you. And spare us any platitudes about subjectivity. You brought objectivity in credibility up in the first place. Argue in good faith.
Factually wrong things published.
Gentleman Jack
Member
This thread is fucking embarrassing to read. GAF is at its worst when it comes to this topic because it feels like a race of hundreds trying to drive-by without showing a shred of interest in the topic. Here's the conclusion, in case folks want to understand where the author is coming from:
The acerbic, relatable and generally fearless quality is what is in short supply, as evidenced by the R. Kelly story that almost got buried. This isn't how you want young journalists to feel in 2017 and beyond, and that is almost entirely the fault of people working for Trump.
To have successfully developed a sensibility thats simultaneously attractive and annoying may be Gawkers ultimate legacy. It was a brave but foolhardy attempt to force a new kind of media freedom on an unprepared world. For all its childish snark, Gawker was run by people who understood that authorities in the media, politics, and culture too often fail to keep the publics best interests in mind. Though Gawker is gone, the fact remains that the powerful still dont have the publics best interests at heart. But the courage required to point this out in an amusing, satirical, and pointed manner is in shorter and shorter supply. For instance, a recent story about the allegedly cultlike and possibly abusive lifestyle of rapper R. Kelly that appeared in BuzzFeed almost never ran, thanks to outlets fear of a Thiel-type response. Its impossible to know how many similarly important stories will never see the light of day for that very reason.
All thats really left to say is that Gawker is gone and that Donald Trump is president. That simple reality should comfort the rich and powerful everywhere and chill the bones of the rest of us.
The acerbic, relatable and generally fearless quality is what is in short supply, as evidenced by the R. Kelly story that almost got buried. This isn't how you want young journalists to feel in 2017 and beyond, and that is almost entirely the fault of people working for Trump.
Ninja Scooter
Member
What's this revisionist history about Gawker being great come from?!
Apparently they were "fearless!" (which is seemingly a nice way of saying they posted fake garbage and revenge porn without caring about the consequences) and that is sorely missing from modern journalism. Where are the modern news outlets who are going to be brave enough to post revenge porn tapes and intimidate rape victims going to come from now that Gawker is gone?!?
Factually wrong things published.
LMAO
You know how old the New York Times is, right? You genuinely believe that's a useful metric when comparing to Gawker?
That's ok, you don't need to respond. Carry on.
This thread is fucking embarrassing to read. GAF is at its worst when it comes to this topic because it feels like a race of hundreds trying to drive-by without showing a shred of interest in the topic. Here's the conclusion, in case folks want to understand where the author is coming from:
The acerbic, relatable and generally fearless quality is what is in short supply, as evidenced by the R. Kelly story that almost got buried. This isn't how you want young journalists to feel in 2017 and beyond, and that is almost entirely the fault of people working for Trump.
Isn't that a bit like saying we don't have many good fire retardant materials, so it's a real shame asbestos isn't around anymore? Like, the problem statement is fine and needs to be addressed but the latter half is what people have an issue with.
Just_myles
Member
Protected for posting revenge porn?
No one is pretending that they're were not scummy, they were. What I mean is if someone with a vendetta like Peter Thiel wanted to they could sue them out of existence. I think the way the political environment is now we need the press to dig deep and not be afraid of being driven out of existence by litigation.
Nah.
Yep.
Atomic Playboy
Member
The best thing Gawker ever did was sending Rich Juzwiak and Caity Weaver around to various restaurants in New York and Disney World. Their reviews were some of the best things I've ever read. Apart from that, I don't miss Gawker, especially since most of them just went to other Kinja sites and their stuff ends up cross-posting into Kotaku or Deadspin anyway. Their MO was just "let's take rich people down a peg" which is not exactly journalistic integrity so much as thinking envy is a proper justification for acting like a dick. We need a press who isn't scared of reprisal, but that doesn't mean the press should be able to act without any regards to the law or basic decency whatsoever. There's a line, and Gawker was born on the wrong side of it.
No one is pretending that they're were not scummy, they were. What I mean is if someone with a vendetta like Peter Thiel wanted to they could sue them out of existence. I think the way the political environment is now we need the press to dig deep and not be afraid of being driven out of existence by litigation.
I think people are arguing that the only reason Thiel could sue them out of existence was because they were scummy.
Gentleman Jack
Member
Isn't that a bit like saying we don't have many good fire retardant materials, so it's a real shame asbestos isn't around anymore? Like, the problem statement is fine and needs to be addressed but the latter half is what people have an issue with.
Gawker Media inhabited a space between the onion and TMZ, but the relative independence of their individual writers is what made them special and let sites like Deadspin/Consumerist/Kotaku eventually grow into really, really good sites whose philosophy of not giving the powerful a pass on any single thing is evident in their trajectories as consumer-oriented blogs. It's not 'revisionist history' to say that is all part of Gawker's positive legacy, your feelings on the outing of Thiel or their disastrous behavior in court against Hogan notwithstanding.
So far I'm not seeing anything quite on the scale that Gawker produced in its lifetime. I'm welcome to suggestions of course, since we are in a thread about the aftermath of their demise where the entire first two pages are just 'nah' and 'fuck gawker' shitposts.
old manatee
Banned
Yeah all year everywhere I go people are wringing their hands and bemoaning the loss of Gawker. How we have suffered as a people. Who else but Gawker could possibly guide us through this dark time?
Gawker Media inhabited a space between the onion and TMZ, but the relative independence of their individual writers is what made them special and let sites like Deadspin/Consumerist/Kotaku eventually grow into really, really good sites whose philosophy of not giving the powerful a pass on any single thing is evident in their trajectories as consumer-oriented blogs. It's not 'revisionist history' to say that is all part of Gawker's positive legacy, your feelings on the outing of Thiel or their disastrous behavior in court against Hogan notwithstanding.
So far I'm not seeing anything quite on the scale that Gawker produced in its lifetime. I'm welcome to suggestions of course, since we are in a thread about the aftermath of their demise where the entire first two pages are just 'nah' and 'fuck gawker' shitposts.
They took existing news articles and added a lame title. You've already mentioned it, but visit TMZ instead. Practically the same thing.
Gentleman Jack
Member
They took existing news articles and added a lame title.
No. Read the dang article:
It was Gawker, for instance, that filed the original FOIA request for the emails between Hillary Clintons aide Philippe Reines and the news media that would eventually lead to the discovery of Clintons suspect email practices (for which she later expressed regret). That the Clinton email scandal would explode during the 2016 election wasnt Gawkers fault; they filed their original request in 2012. The whole mess might have been avoided had it been forthrightly addressed immediately. Yet the State Department, then the Clinton campaign, denied, fumbled and delayed an effective response for years. Clinton Aide Who Avoided FOIA Insists He Didnt Want to Avoid FOIA When He Wrote I Want to Avoid FOIA, a typically barbed Gawker headline from the whole long-running mess read.
You know, this issue of the monied targeting the fourth estate might get a whole lot of sympathy...but so long as you have to point to fucking Gawker as the prime example, you'll never get it. Fuck Gawker
If it weren't for Buzzfeed pulling a Gawker and publishing the Steele Dossier, we would never have heard about Trump's Pee tape.
So you know, there is value in fearlessness.
It didn't look like Hogan's would either. But he got the right judge in the right town to hear it. That's how this one's setting up, too.
Followup: Disney pays at least $177 million to settle 'pink slime' case: filing
It's illegal to call pink slime pink slime now.
Yeah they can stay dead.Nah.
shawnbuddy
Member
I agree. "Respectable" journalism is great, but by definition only goes so far. Gawker was a powerful lefty source that would not be afraid to stick a big dirty thumb in the Trump cabal's eye, restraint be damned. I mean, before Thiel destroyed them they were literally asking people to send in tapes and other information they could use to destroy Trump, no pretense of objectivity. If the piss tape exists, Gawker would publish it uncensored. If the N-word tape is out ther, Gawker would post it without hesitation.
If it weren't for Buzzfeed pulling a Gawker and publishing the Steele Dossier, we would never have heard about Trump's Pee tape.
So you know, there is value in fearlessness.
The Pee Tape no one has seen thus far? A lot of major outlets had the information about that Dossier, but chose not to run it since they couldn't independently verify it. I'd much rather see the dripping yellow receipts included with the article if they were going to post the allegations in the first place.
As it stands, the specter of the pee tape hasn't added much to the public discourse, other than for dunking on Trump (which is certainly cathartic).
If the piss tape exists, Gawker would publish it uncensored. If the N-word tape is out ther, Gawker would post it without hesitation.
Come on...if the piss tape exists, you don't think any other outlet will be itching to publish it unedited? Gawker wasn't that much of a precious butterfly.
Just_myles
Member
I think people are arguing that the only reason Thiel could sue them out of existence was because they were scummy.
I'm more concerned about the precedent it has created to be honest.
This is one of those means to an end situations, because they would fight dirty. While I understand that there's a time and a place for that for some things, the rest of the evil they brought with them isn't worth the trade-off
Then again it's not like other outlets and publications wouldn't fight dirty if they had certain things to use, Gawker just made a big spectacle out of it all the time so it was more noticeable.
Then again it's not like other outlets and publications wouldn't fight dirty if they had certain things to use, Gawker just made a big spectacle out of it all the time so it was more noticeable.
And more than happy to report on any leaks from the White House. I have huge doubts we missed out on any (true) story that only Gawker would have reportedYes, because no other outlet is blasting Trump on a regular basis.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
I'm not acting if it is on the same level, but i warn you this goes towards what fascism is. It starts with one, than the next block will fall after that.
It is simple when you shut one down the next can go down also like i said before you don't when it is going to happen but when it does happen it will be a bigger shock across every single journalist,website or channel. They can sue anyone for anything and it can lead up to censorship that is the goal they want to achieve. You need to think further even if it is gawker not seeing the wider spectrum that is a very dangerous path this will go.
It's only simple if you believe all cases are similar, which is obviously not the case. The underlying assumption in your post is that all billionaires will win vs. the media.
CertifiedFP
Member
We have enough Tabloids with Enquirer and Globe. Just because Gawker was a left Tabloid contrary to the blatant right-wing tilt of the rest of tabloid "journalism" does not excuse it being a Tabloid.