-
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.
Is Kotaku in danger of shutting down?
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Somehow I don't think a person who uses a gif of admitted rapist and MRA scumbag Roosh masturbating to celebrate Kotaku employees in danger of unemployment is going to be easily reached
A Link to the Past
Banned
Holy shit I knew I recognized that guy lol
DirtyLarry
Member
Guilty by association.
I actually go to Kotaku daily as well. I see a lot of people have something against them, I never did as I do not follow the drama of gaming journalism.
But they are part of Gawker.
Gawker, especially the website itself, has cared about clicks more than anything else. That's always the impression I got at least.
I actually go to Kotaku daily as well. I see a lot of people have something against them, I never did as I do not follow the drama of gaming journalism.
But they are part of Gawker.
Gawker, especially the website itself, has cared about clicks more than anything else. That's always the impression I got at least.
Hulk Hogan is always taking down companies. First it was WCW. Then it was almost the WWF brother. And now it's Gawker. Say your prayers, and take your vitamins because this racist cannot be stopped. He's been given too much energy by Satan. He's hulking up. He's hulking up. No one is stopping him.
timmyp53
Member
A Link to the Past
Banned
timetokill
Banned
The main thing is, if it takes Kotaku going down to rid us of Gawker, then so be it. It's sad Kotaku will have to be collateral damage but it's not worth Gawker continuing to exist to save them.
A Link to the Past
Banned
how dare you
timmyp53
Member
I'm more mad at timetokill for killing the chain.
JustCheezze
Banned
Kotaku used to be more idiotic than IGN.
The past few years they have produced some of the best articles for this damning gaming media industry, wouldn't want to see them get shut down because of Hogan's penis.
The past few years they have produced some of the best articles for this damning gaming media industry, wouldn't want to see them get shut down because of Hogan's penis.
If it's a part of Gawker, I'm sure it will...
I used to be into the Kotaku community before they changed the whole system (and I came here to join you lovely people). Even won a Photoshop contest. It was a decent place of discussion, but I stopped having it on my places to go list when the site was well- becoming what it is now. Just going to the front page I can't seem to find the news of today for instance...and there's a snack review on a gaming blog that I'm utterly confused over. It's a bunch of articles about nerdy stuff, sure, but most of those tend to be odd opinion pieces that I rarely agree with and don't care much for these days. To each their own though.
Though I'm sure they may get sold off in pieces rather than just shut down entirely, and I can only hope if they do get sold that the staff isn't affected negatively. I can hope that if they do get bought, their new owners let them do what they want to do rather than falter like Joystiq and many others like it have.
What a terrible viewpoint. The collateral damage you're talking about isn't some piece of property or object, it's people's jobs and livelihoods being taken from them.
TunaMarshmallow
Member
LumpOfCole
Member
Kotaku could disband to rebuild itself independently with the same employees, calling itself Keikaku or something. I could imagine getting that design and ad-train out of the station would take some major time and effort though.
Yep. I think it's stupid thinking that Gawker should be allowed to get off scot-free just because a journalist you like has to find a new job.
If one coherently thinks that, they're not much better than Gawker.
TunaMarshmallow
Member
Yes. And the important point here is that the individuals who are responsible for the immoral and tortious activity at Gawker are the ones to blame when/if innocent folks are laid off.
This is the messy, complicated, and unfortunate reality of free enterprise and Western law. Companies like Gawker have tremendous latitude in how they conduct themselves. They have tremendous power, they employ fucktons of people, and they can make a lot of money. But if they do something very wrong, the results for uninvolved people can be catastrophic. That's just the way it is. It's a shame, but it's a feature of the system.
I think it's very reasonable to be compassionate and generous to the good folks at Gawker who had nothing to do with this mess. And in the event that Gawker collapses (still a big 'if'), I hope people within the community will find ways to lend a hand, connect folks with jobs, and so forth. But it would be a very serious mistake to allow companies like Gawker to get away with this shit because we don't want the people they employ to suffer. The long-term (or even medium-term) consequences of that kinda of system are much, much, much worse than some good people losing their jobs.
Man who is father of 3 children goes on a burglar int spree until he is caught. The man is out into prison. People can be both happy that a criminal is behind bars and also be sad by the effect it will have on the children.
Do you think his children should be some sort of shield from consequences?
akidnamededdy
Banned
Sure. Sue the people at Gawker who broke the law and invaded Hogan's privacy, don't punish the entire corporation.
poodaddy
Member
I hope not just for Kotaku, but that case played out exactly how it should have. Isn't it possible that Gawker could just sell Kotaku to another big publisher though? I don't know how asset liquidation and sell offs work, but Kotaku's pretty huge so I can't see it just shutting down like that. I'm sure they'll be fine.
theangrypirate
Member
The corporation is the problem. The corporation's sole purpose of existing is to make money. Gawker decided they will make money by publishing anything to get clicks, including private sex tapes. They publish sex tapes against people's will then condemn those who took part in the fappening. working for gawker or any of its sites makes gawker money. I'm so sick of reading how people don't think anyone should be happy that gawkwer is imploding because some people will lose their jobs. They are a shitty company and anyone who works for them helps them be a shitty company even if they write some good articles about videogames. The guys who are good at their jobs will find work elsewhere and they won't be funding the creepy self righteous gawker media empire anymore.
I just looked into that... Jesus, that guy is a monster. I can only hope that he suffers greatly at some point.
poodaddy
Member
Your curiosity enabled my curiosity; Jesus Christ I wish I didn't confirm that people that terrible exist. I want back in the bubble.
That's a terrible viewpoint. Some companies are awful and deserve to be shut down. Gawker's bosses have shown to be deeply unethical and irresponsible; if people won't continue to work for them, that's a good thing. The greater good outweighs the need of the few not having to seek new employment.
The end of Gawker (if it even happens) won't be the end of the life of its employees.
Of course I'd feel sorry for the employees of Kotaku (specifially Schreier, who's a good guy) because they aren't to blame for Gawker's misdeeds. But life will go on, and the capable journalists will find new jobs.
She made it clear she didn't want to talk. She shot down his request for an interview in that quote. And if someone responds that way, maybe it is on the journalist to actually check if it is okay to print something where the second party said she didn't want to. She made it clear she wasn't interested in working with him, and that she didn't want to be part of it. So she has a right to be mad.
And you are right, he isn't a psychic, so a response like that should make him wonder about it. In that end, it is a grey area, which he could have avoided by making the rules of conversation more clear to someone that doesn't do this that much. In the end, it is not as important as the sex tape or the Conde Nast debacle, but I can understand why she is mad. At least she should understand it paints her as more sympathetic than when she launched the campaign against Rapp, so that she should appreciate. (And we will probably remain on different pages on this, so we don't need to go deeper on it.)
Indeed, but most journalism courses stress the importance of making the rules of engagement clear just becaus it is not as easy to define.
Battlechili
Banned
I hope so. Most of Gawker Media's sites are pretty poor in quality when it comes to journalism, Kotaku included.
That said, I do fear for those who work for these companies. I don't like the idea of seeing people losing their jobs, and I imagine this whole event is very stressful for everyone involved. Some of it is deserved perhaps, but still.
That said, I do fear for those who work for these companies. I don't like the idea of seeing people losing their jobs, and I imagine this whole event is very stressful for everyone involved. Some of it is deserved perhaps, but still.
AuthenticM
Member
ClosingADoor
Member
I think this monetization model allows them to piss of publishers once in a while, since because of that they are not only running on ad money from those same publishers. It's a good thing actually.
No, we don't need to go deeper into it, because despite everyone with actual experience on both sides of situation disagreeing with the rules and standards of practices you've made up in your own head, you conti ue to stick your fingers in your ears and declare that you're right.
She made a statement. Nowhere in that statement did she say not to quote her.
She has the right to be angry just like everyone has the right to be angry about anything. Her anger isn't justified, nor are her snide remarks.
She's wrong. You're wrong. Period.
Personally, I would feel bad if Kotaku was destroyed now, because of the jobs lost and because they've started writing better articles once Totilo took over and Crecente moved to Polygon. I'm not even going to elaborate on that fool Luke Plunkett.
But the logic that you can't wish for something to dismantle because it's sad that jobs are lost is hooey. That logic is flimsy and brittle as soon as you apply it to several other situations. It's not shameful to want an immoral or unethical company to dismantle despite the fact jobs would be lost, especially if those jobs can manifest themselves differently elsewhere.
But the logic that you can't wish for something to dismantle because it's sad that jobs are lost is hooey. That logic is flimsy and brittle as soon as you apply it to several other situations. It's not shameful to want an immoral or unethical company to dismantle despite the fact jobs would be lost, especially if those jobs can manifest themselves differently elsewhere.
A Link to the Past
Banned
people who avatar quote should be in prison
It't too bad for the good people at Kotaku. There is some good content in there but also a lot of click-bait garbage. Haven't visited in a while and when you check the first page you get Darth Vader In Fallout 4 Is More Powerful Than You Could Possibly Imagine and Pokken UFC Photoshop :S. Hopefully they can find something else and land on their feet if the worst happens. Won't shed a tear over Gawker, the world will be a better place without it.
He asks for an interview, she declines. He doesn't ask for a statement.
This was the original mail: https://twitter.com/JamieWalton/status/705908241704873984
It was a request for an interview, which she denied: https://twitter.com/JamieWalton/status/705909415883444224
Which he also understood considering his response: https://twitter.com/JamieWalton/status/705909598918733824
As for your 'actual experience', I have that, on both sides as well.
ClosingADoor
Member
Nowhere does she say she does not want to be quoted. She says she doesn't have time to answer questions, then says she doesn't want anything to do with Gamergate or that battle going on. Which is fair. And Kotaku had every right to take quotes from that response - and use her public tweets in the article.
DealWithIt
Member
maaaybe they can get a court order staying a bond for appeal. I don't know what the judge's discretion is on bonds. There is a very good chance the jury verdict gets reduced on appeal.
It's called Vicarious liability. Your corporation is liable for the acts of people acting within the scope of their employment. It's one the downsides a corporation accepts in exchange for the benefits of incorporation.
It's called Vicarious liability. Your corporation is liable for the acts of people acting within the scope of their employment. It's one the downsides a corporation accepts in exchange for the benefits of incorporation.
Kobun Heat
Member
As people keep trying to explain, none of this matters. Someone ID's themselves as a journalist, the rest is on the record. In this case, Walton is a public figure, acting in her official capacity as the head of an org, and her comments in that email were themselves newsworthy since they added significant clarification to her mindset and actions. So not only were the remarks fair game, they were also very much worth reporting.
Yeah I don't really see an issue with what Klepek did (aside from the typo in his first e-mail, haha). Maybe I'm missing something.
Her email is still odd to me compared to her actions.
And I don't know what was misquoting.
Patrick took only the relevant part of the email that mattered and it's unaltered from her email.
He also clarified before that with her tweets that she didn't suggest that Alison's supervisors should fire her either. She, Jamie Walton, would like her fired but says "but, that isn't my call."
I'm really not understanding any of what she's talking about.
EDIT: And also as others have said, Patrick did nothing wrong in his reporting and she never once said that it should be off the record. Only that she didn't have time for questions.
And I don't know what was misquoting.
Patrick took only the relevant part of the email that mattered and it's unaltered from her email.
He also clarified before that with her tweets that she didn't suggest that Alison's supervisors should fire her either. She, Jamie Walton, would like her fired but says "but, that isn't my call."
I'm really not understanding any of what she's talking about.
EDIT: And also as others have said, Patrick did nothing wrong in his reporting and she never once said that it should be off the record. Only that she didn't have time for questions.
I assume she just plain didn't want to be quoted, didn't like the tone of the article and how it pertained to her. Unfortunately she looks bad by her own actions, not through any unsubstantiated inference of the article itself.
LightofRohan
Member
Agreed. But I still go there because it feels they have a monopoly on game news, due to how fast and vicious they are with their posts.
I hate people losing jobs, but I am all for changing things up. Hopefully some good comes out of this.