Kim Masters went to many publishers. None would publish her story about Price due to fears of legal backlash. The Gawker effect is real.
Read the whole thing here: https://www.cjr.org/first_person/amazon-roy-price.php
-
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.
Fighting the Gawker effect in the wake of Weinstein
- Thread starter Makonero
- Start date
Kim Masters went to many publishers. None would publish her story about Price due to fears of legal backlash. The Gawker effect is real.
Read the whole thing here: https://www.cjr.org/first_person/amazon-roy-price.php
This pre-dates Gawker by decades.
The Faceless Master
Member
Gawker was around and Harvey was raping women and they didn't publish a story despite 'everyone' knowing about him.
I think it might be more of a "holy shit if this story ends up not being true, we are in so much trouble"-effect.
A Gawker effect would be more of a "oh it seems we no longer can publish anything we want even if we think it would generate a ton of clicks", and if that's gone that's mostly a good thing.
A Gawker effect would be more of a "oh it seems we no longer can publish anything we want even if we think it would generate a ton of clicks", and if that's gone that's mostly a good thing.
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
Say what you will, stories/posts like these put a dent into his aura of invincibility.
http://defamer.gawker.com/tell-us-what-you-know-about-harvey-weinsteins-open-sec-1695071092
Or outright disregarding a direct order from a judge to remove said article / video.
Honestly, how fucking hard is all of this for people to understand?
I will never understand the Gawker defence force, ever.
Dude Abides
Banned
How fucking hard is it for people to understand that a media company being bankrupted by a third-party-financed lawsuit for publishing true information about a public figure has a chilling effect on other media organizations considering whether to publish damaging information about other public figures?
Very fucking hard, apparently.
Curious Puppy
Banned
Not surprising that Peter Thiel stans post here and don't see or don't care about how thoroughly manipulated the courts were by that rich piece of shit sociopath. "B-b-but this is different" is a really pathetic excuse to justify what happened to Gawker. When it happens to other media organizations you'll find a similarly short sighted and weak justification for that, too, I'm guessing.
You can think what Gakwer did was sleazy, but a free press is a free press. Either you stand for a free press or you don't. The encroachment and chilling effect is very, very real even if you refuse to see it.
And remember, the lawsuit was designed to ensure Gawker's insurance wouldn't cover the damages.
Because the purpose of the lawsuit was to bankrupt Gawker.
Lonewulfeus
Member
Yea the gawker hate around here is pretty crazy, they fucked up on outing that gay guy but the hulk hogan thing was a bit more gray imo. The ability for the ultra rich to silence journalists though... That's scary as fuck cause they are the true enemy
Pai Pai Master
Banned
Gawker is garbage and no one should defend them or hold them up as an example of good or just journalism. They got exactly what they deserved. The Weinstein and Price situations were not equivalent.
dreamcastmaster
Banned
But her emails/But Hulk Hogan is Racist
excelsiorlef
Member
Just for the record people do know that Gawker had a very strong chance of winning the appeal... but the lawsuit was set up in such a way so that they'd be bankrupted before that to insure they couldn't actually afford to appeal right?
Curious Puppy
Banned
Of course they don't know that. They just want to pop in, say Gawker deserved it and anyone who defends them is stupid, and then leave. They don't apply critical thinking to the case or do any research. They probably don't even know who Peter Thiel is or what he stands for.
Lonewulfeus
Member
They aren't equivalent but reprisal from these rich subjects is causing publishers to have second thoughts about publishing pieces on then precisely because they are rich and can financially ruin an outlet for dubious and/or no reason at all.
Lonewulfeus
Member
This was their major fuck up, so one fuck up means everything they did was garbage?
Outing Peter Thiel was their first major one. They had a lot of little ones too.
Lonewulfeus
Member
Iirc, Peter thiel wasn't exactly closeted.
I'm very familiar with Thiel and what he stands for.
Gawker still got what they deserved.
This predates Gawker's existence. The industry can afford to lose one idiotic, cavalier outlet.
SecretMoblin
Member
Also, because she fully admits to not understanding what her lawyers were explaining to her about the potential legal ramifications of publishing the piece as-is, only trying journalistic operations with certain baseline publishing and clearance standards, having portions of her piece that did meet those standards published, and mentioning the R. Kelly piece that was published as well as the joke Eric Bolling lawsuit that will be thrown out of court. The sky is certainly falling, though.
Ok.
Lonewulfeus
Member
Or, she's saying that the lawyer could not adequately explain why she shouldn't go ahead with her story?
Curious Puppy
Banned
This is such a clueless defense. Might as well just admit you don't believe in a free press. You believe in a limited press under your own guidelines, guidelines that are outlined by the U.S. justice system, the same justice system that rich white men have been wielding and twisting to their advantage since America was formed. You really have no scope or understanding of how much deeper this goes than simply one journalistic outlet being closed down, and its infuriating.
Cosigned.
The problem isn't that they were taken down, the problem is that it took someone like Thiel to do it when they had such a long history of terrible behavior.
There are plenty of gossip rags, plenty of investigative journalists out there with better standards than they had.
Dude Abides
Banned
She never says she didn't understand what the lawyers (not "her" lawyers) were saying. And you're complaining she only brought the piece to actual journalistic outlets instead of the National Enquirer?
Ok.
"I don't like Peter Thiel" is not a legal argument.
I don't like him either but what Gawker did was essentially revenge porn.
excelsiorlef
Member
Here's the deal about Thiel.... he's a goddamn bigot who openly works to ensure that LGBT folks who aren't billionaires get fucked by the government.... It's actually sort of relevant that he's Gay.
Ummm...
Thiel is not Hogan.
Ummm...
Thiel is not Hogan.
Of all the details to that case, this was the one thing they unambiguously got right. Higher court vindicated their decision to not take down the post.
You didnt pay much attention I guess.
excelsiorlef
Member
You said it was revenge porn?
What was Gawker getting revenge on Hogan for?
You can talk about it being wrong without comparing it to things it isn't.
Motivation isn't what makes revenge porn wrong or illegal.
You're right. It was just posting a sex tape of someone online without their knowledge or consent. No revenge involved. So...
Professor Beef
Banned
ForkNetwork
Banned
Yep, even if you fucking depise Gawker, its kinda important to understand what the lawsuit meant for all western journalism (especially considering the shady aspects of the trial)
You're right. It was just posting a sex tape of someone online without their knowledge or consent. No revenge involved. So...
Edit: To not come across as shit posting, WTF does the definition matter. Hence the "So..."
Lonewulfeus
Member
Lawyers have killed stories long before Gawker ever came into existence. If you're accusing someone powerful of something, actually accusing them, and they aren't a politician, you had better have the solid proof or a litany of accusers. If you don't then they won't print. Just because Gawker printed rumor as fact doesn't mean that's how journalism works.
He did (though it came out after the tape had already been released, I think). Hulk Hogan is scum. Do you think that makes what Gawker did in any way shape or form ok?
Lonewulfeus
Member
Buzzfeed did the same thing with the Steele dossier was that wrong too?
It changes whether or not that tape would be considered newsworthy. Maybe they should have only played the audio but a public figure being racist is newsworthy no matter the context.
The secret fascinating story in all this is the saga of Lisa Bloom. The Ringer did a profile of her here: https://www.theringer.com/2017/10/11/16456266/lisa-bloom-harvey-weinstein-profile, discussed by the writer on the Jam Session podcast here: https://overcast.fm/+FkNtn_CYo.
The Steele Dossier had been presented to the President and President-Elect of the United States in a national security briefing. That's why they published it, they said that's why they published it. The fact Obama and Trump had been briefed on it made the dossier itself as well as what it said newsworthy.
It's not remotely the same thing. They didn't publish it before that because they had no way to verify it or how seriously it should be taken. Obama and Trump getting it in a briefing meant it should be taken seriously.
Lonewulfeus
Member
I bring it up because other journalists sat on that for months, even with the president and President elect having been briefed they were not going to report it. They considered it just rumors and we didn't need to know, but if one of them had published that piece in October maybe we wouldn't be in the darkest timeline.
TheRedSnifit
Member
ITT: Posting sex tapes of people without their consent is not just acceptable but commendable as long as I dress it up as journalism.
A whole new avenue of wealth has opened up for me. Thanks, GAF!
A whole new avenue of wealth has opened up for me. Thanks, GAF!
If they had published it in October, with zero corroboration, it would have been laughed out of the room. Just like all the other mentions of Russian influence were. You think no one brought up the fact the Russians were screwing around until after the dossier? Hell, Mother Jones did write about the dossier and it got ignored because they had no proof it was legit.
Professor Beef
Banned
First off, I just wanna say that I cannot believe I'm explaining what revenge porn is to someone on GAF, let alone in general lol
Secondly revenge porn is when you have sex with someone (typically an ex or soon-to-be ex) and then make it public as a way of getting "revenge" for them scorning you. As far as I know, nobody at Gawker had sex with Hogan so what they did can't be classified as revenge porn.
I...ugh...rest my case.
Lonewulfeus
Member
It had zero corroboration and no proof it was legit in January. What was the difference?
Again, Obama and Trump had been briefed on it at that point. That made it and what it said newsworthy.
Similar threads
- Poll