uncelestial
Member
I would say "we've never needed it more than now" is pretty accurate since we never needed it then and don't need it now.
-
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.
Gawker has been gone for a year. Weve never needed it more than now. (WaPo)
- Thread starter ryseing
- Start date
Ninja Scooter
Member
To call what they did just "scummy" seems like an understatement. TMZ is scummy. Yet they don't get sued out of existence. Why do you think that is?
shawnbuddy
Member
Yes, a lot of other outlets had the Steele Dossier and SAT ON IT. That's the point. We're lucky Buzzfeed was willing to take a chance but it has been courting respectability too much lately.
If a "respectable" outlets gets the pee tape and will only release and edited version, all the smaller outlets will only have that to work with. Gawker was a nearly unique combination of left wing, unafraid and having the journalistic resources to get scoops and break news.
Yep. Gawker could only dream of something like this:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/opinion/sunday/president-trump-resignation.html
Yeah, I guess I disagree with the fact that releasing it was the right decision. As someone that wants Trump to be brought down (and hard), I don't know how much public discourse improves by releasing that dossier and pinning the hopes and dreams of Trump's detractors to it being factual. Perhaps a lot of it will prove to be true however until then, it seems irresponsible to have just unleashed it upon the world without being able to verify it.
Yeah, it's not like there was something magical about Gawker that nobody else could do.
Just_myles
Member
Hm... that's a good point. Well, my attempt was to look past how egregiously bad Gawker's reporting was and look at the bigger picture as I have said earlier. Your point is that there is no point in even looking at that since what they did was so bad that they are some sort of exception to the rule with regards to freedom of the press. My questions to you(or anyone who wants to join in) is do they "stop" being the press when they out people's private lives(Thiel, Hogan, and Cooke I believe) ? Doesn't TMZ already do that? Didn't they already report on the Usher news? Kevin Hart? etc...
btw I have no gotcha or aha response. I legitimately want to know your take.
Iva Demilcol
Member
Yes, we surely need more media that accepts they'd upload CP for clicks.
Ninja Scooter
Member
I think knowingly posting a sex video online that as far as you know was made without the participants knowledge is shitty and rightfully illegal. And I think if it had been Jennifer Lawerence or Scarlett Johanson who was the subject of their "news" instead of an 70 year old ex-prowrestler the reactions would have been far different.
TheCochese
Banned
People also seem to forget they posted a possible rape tape and told the woman to let it go because no one could identify her in it.
Skyball Paint
Member
Every journalist claiming that Gawker was some noble martyr speaking truth to power needs to have this rubbed in their face til the end of time.
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
Nope. Good riddance.
bonesmccoy
Banned
Gawker was a fucking stain on the profession.
The Greek Freak
Member
Sorry they are too busy virtue signaling and dunking on an old ass racist wrestler to give a shit about an actual victim.
GabeTheGrouch76
Member
I can acknowledge the arguments being pushed about Gawker's influences and the hole the site's demise has left in its wake, but I think we should be striving for for a significantly more ethically responsible site to fill the gap. A fair amount of the actions they did can be said to be nothing less than reprehensible.
The article honestly reminds me of those occasional Forbes contributor articles that pop up from time to time TBH.
The article honestly reminds me of those occasional Forbes contributor articles that pop up from time to time TBH.
Emulated Hype
Member
Nah, what they were doing was completely unethical. I'm surprised they weren't sued into oblivion sooner.
Hell no, that site needs to stay dead and buried.
Also, I like how they assume a site that had no morals and kept a video up of a girl being sexually assaulted, would actually go against trump. They'd go where the money is, and probably start with some "Both sides" bullshit to cause controversy. Gawker was nobody's friend.
Also, I like how they assume a site that had no morals and kept a video up of a girl being sexually assaulted, would actually go against trump. They'd go where the money is, and probably start with some "Both sides" bullshit to cause controversy. Gawker was nobody's friend.
Asbestos was wonderful at its job. It just also gave you cancer.
Gawker did not possess some unique superpower to do what good it did. Others who don't out people against their will or publish sex videos without the consent of those being spied on can take their place. If anyone is to blame for the squandered opportunity, it's them.
There was no precedent set by a company doing something unethical and being sued into bankruptcy.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
Like who? Mother Jones beat a billionaire political donor, and that's just one example. IIRC, there's also another case trying to fight against the idiot who claims he invented email. To say that the precedence is frightening is overblown and using the slippery slope fallacy, because you're making the underlying assumption that all cases will be similar just bc it has a billionaire and a news media. I'd argue the reasons they're suing is more important, especially when it comes to judges making decisions (which easy enough is why Gawker failed big time, especially when their jackass idiot owner made the implication that he would post child porn in court. Even if it's sarcasm, that's not a good look at all).
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
That Netflix documentary was so stupid.
RockTurtle
Member
HEY! Gawker may have been a shitstain of a rag that deserved to be razed into the dirt, but i am mad that it was a republican billionaire that did it!
PRECEDENTS™!!
am i right or am i right??
/s
No, fuck Gawker and fuck anyone who wants to use them as some sort of pariah for the sanctity of investigative reporting.
They did shady, fuck-headed things and the only reason people have an issue with the way things went down is because someone bad got a win.
PRECEDENTS™!!
am i right or am i right??
/s
No, fuck Gawker and fuck anyone who wants to use them as some sort of pariah for the sanctity of investigative reporting.
They did shady, fuck-headed things and the only reason people have an issue with the way things went down is because someone bad got a win.
ClosingADoor
Member
So it is OK to do this stuff if you don't like the other person? Come on now...
shawnbuddy
Member
I don't think so. It opened the conversation and now it's being considered. Without this sunlight it could have been buried. In fact, Steele just provided the sources to verify his work.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ources-trump-dossier-report-article-1.3433372
I agree with the fact that the way they were killed has a chilling effect on free speech. But one can agree with that while also not being terribly sad that the site is dead.
That wasn't the only time. There was also the time they outed the CFO of Conde Nast, for no damn reason besides he was a relative to someone important.
BudokaiMR2
Member
Nah fuck that they would probably be wasting their talent me hounding their son, Baron, or something for some silly private scoop.
Most outlets around the world have been doing a great job cataloging and calling Trump and others like him out.
Most outlets around the world have been doing a great job cataloging and calling Trump and others like him out.
shawnbuddy
Member
Courts had already agreed that because Hogan was a public figure his sex tape was fair game. Thiel's resources actually allowed for the setting of a bad precedent, shopping around until he was able to find a court and jury that would decide the case based on emotion and counter to the law. Read about it a bit. There was a conservative Jeb Bush appointed judge and one of Hogan's lawyers played heavily on right wing hatred of the media tropes, shamed Gawker for having a sister porn site (Fleshbot), played up Bollea as a hometown boy to the Florida jury and a lot of other things that had nothing to do with the law.
Also, to head some things other things off at the pass that always pop up in GAF threads:
Thiel was not outed. Thiel was out and admits that he was.
Gawker did take the video down when ordered. They only left the story text up.
Think of the precedent, people! With the removal of General Gawkert E Lee, what's to stop them from coming after the George Washington Post or the Thomas Jefferson Times? It's a slippery slope, and I will forever mourn that future generations will never be able to remember and celebrate General Gawkert E Lee's accomplishments and their fight to preserve state rights: The right to post revenge porn, out gay celebrities, and own people.
superdeluxe
Member
Lol. Courage in the media? Fuck Gawker
My point is that the method in which news outlets are able to being taken down for their practices is not necessarily a fruitful one - i.e. that justice for malpractice shouldn't be dependent on billionaires and their lawyers, but through other more just means.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
I actually find that excerpt disgusting. Gawker's greatest con was convincing people that the only way to allow journalists to publish material was to agree to let them off the hook for things like assisting blackmail by outing a closeted gay man.
Surprise, a lot of places are publishing good stories without being such shitty terrible outfits.
Edit: Jesus, how did I forget about the time they posted a video of a potential rape and told the victim to piss off because they claimed you couldn't really tell who it was?
veloxStrix
Banned
The media needs to be open for people to have access to all information - good or bad. Gawker, at least, provided mostly reliable information even if at times it was unethical. Compare that to the deluge of fake news sites that have filled the void it left behind and I think I can see where the author is coming from. Especially since they realize themselves that Gawker wasn't all good and never even try to make that point.
Though, I also actually read the article. So that might be why I can't sympathize with most of the comments here. The idea that wealth should be able to dismantle journalism is something I wouldn't think GAF would sympathize with so much.
Though, I also actually read the article. So that might be why I can't sympathize with most of the comments here. The idea that wealth should be able to dismantle journalism is something I wouldn't think GAF would sympathize with so much.
RichiRamjag
Member
Gawker is most definitely not the cure for what ails us.
You say this like it is a good thing.
No, it should not take wealth to shut down shitty, unethical "journalism". You should be able to do it without it.
The problem is not that Gawker got killed, it's that it took Thiel's vendetta to do it.