Anyone want to join me in pooling in some money to web scrape Gawker.com along with the comments for future archiving? Once it's gone it's gone. (and no Archive.org doesn't grab everything, especially if it's hiding behind "click to load more" links)
I'm thinking of doing the same with all of NPR's comments before they get deleted on Aug 23.
Gawker is evil and that's why it needs to be preserved as a valuable lesson in propaganda for future generations. So one day when kids ask "show me an example of far left liberal extremist propaganda" you can show them the Gawker Archives.
We have many extant examples of shitty gossip sites. the politics of said sites aren't really important in any way I can imagine. Beyond that, gawker isn't even far left. It's just populist. We have many extant examples of shitty populist sites as well.
Reminder for the 1000th time: this verdict was the product of venue shopping until they landed in front of an insane judge and a half dozen floridians. Earlier courts ruled in Gawkers favor and the eventual appeal will rule in Gawkers favor. The law is 100% on their side regardless of the frivolity of the post. It just turns out that given enough time and money you can buy the justice you want.
As a regular dude who was thinking way too much about a former college girlfriend. I want to thank Gawker for showing me a picture of her in Cabo with at least 30 dudes.
I don't want to get into a debate. She was just a product of life/business circumstances? I just remember a girl who who suddenly got depressed when other pretty girls were around, at work, or wherever. She was on a company vacation, but seeing her with so many seemingly desperate dudes, jerked me back into realty pretty quick. I never wanted a Amish girlfriend, but I didn't want a canieving, opportunist then, nor now. And yes--I guess it's a bit sexist? I had to include that last sentence. Why--just because.
She was a statistics/accounting major in college. She was always gauging her odds for seemingly everything. When I heard she got tired of San Francisco, and still wasen't married, I just had a hunch she would go to a place that she thought would up her her social desirability. I figured she thought Silicon Valley would be the place--a lot of ambitious white guys.
That's where she ended up. It was probally business related move, but I was so glad I saw her in that publication years ago. I believe it was called The Valley Wag in the day. It saved a lot of speculation, or what's the phrase--maybe regret over what could have been?
> There is going to be 40 others that pop up in its place and you can bet that they'll be more prepared to withstand justice shopping efforts.
What does that mean "justice shopping" ? are you implying that Hulk Hogan lawsuit was frivolous or he somehow bought judges with Thiel's money ? can you be more specific ?
First off Hulk Hogan was washed up before this incident. 100million+ dollars was way over the top. Secondly, Hulk Hogan didn't lose any money from it. Where is the damage other than it gave him publicity.
People have had medical procedures go wrong and been unlawfully murdered by law enforcement and gotten far and away less money.
The reason I use the term justice shopping is because Peter Theil had been unsuccessful at attempts to get back a Gawker for outing him in previous law suits. TBQH he's a hypocrite on the issue of gay rights.
Peter should stop making his sexuality everyone else's problem. So what someone said you were gay and you are gay. Big f-n deal. I'm gay myself.
Hulk Hogan made a movie and is mad it got released. If you don't want your movie released, you don't make it in the first place. He is a celebrity and knows the risks. This isn't some non-public figure.
I don't like the implications here that if the media reports on something you don't like, jamming up the court system with law suit after law suit is a viable option.
Even if you believe that Gawker was guilty of something in posting the Hogan sex tapes, I have a very hard time understanding how anyone can view the annihilation of the company as justice.
The other side on this case certainly wasn't out for justice, that seems clear. They were out for blood and revenge. And they got it.
Gawker fucked up a lot. But our media landscape is worse off without it.
I'm genuinely interested in how this community views the demise of a site like gawker will have an actual effect on those like the NYT, CNN, WaPo, etc. ?
well, Gawker is a nuisance/gadfly that throws a lot of dirt all over, while NYT/CNN/WaPo are very establishment and play nice with all but the very worst of rich people
Gawker is not being destroyed because they broke the law. Many companies, including media companies, do that on the regular. Gawker is being destroyed because a billionaire didn't like them, and decided to devote enough time & money to destroy them.
Regardless of your opinion of Gawker, the precedent is that news publishers can successfully be destroyed if they make powerful enemies. Many news sites are already hesitant to report on powerful individuals, and now they are being proven that they were right to do so. For someone like me who believes that a free press is an important check on power, this is bad precedent to set.
That's not what I'm saying, although the whole thing would feel less scandalous if Peter Thiel's name wasn't attached.
Commenting on the legality of what Gawker or Hogan did is above my pay-grade. But a nine-figure judgment that might be overturned but has nevertheless destroyed the company is not a just response to the purported crime.
How can it not chill any journalistic organization?
The thesis, for those less interested in buying the book, is that when we embraced blogs like Gawker and Buzzfeed as a source of news content, the quality of our news decreased drastically.
You went from sort of the New York Times subscription-based model, where people are subscribed already and your journalists can focus on the quality of your content, back to the days of "EXTRA! Read all about it," where everyone is just trying to be heard over the thousands of other available blogs.
So our headlines became clickbait, content became lies, and because it's so pervasive, there is little to no accountability.
The hogan case is important because it adds accountability.
If you lean to the Right at all, you see that this happens all the time, and has been happening for a very long time. There are always groups of people who try to set themselves up as an elite, who can never face justice for anything, and who can destroy anybody they feel like without consequences. America was set up so that it's harder for actual politicians to be truly elite, so it's more media figures and bureaucrats.
The real elite are leftists, but that doesn't mean they're the same as the left. Witness how almost the whole DNC lined up against Bernie Sanders.
This sort of thing happens all the time, to many arguably undeserving people. It's only getting attention because it's happening to an organization that was supposed to be part of the Elite. As such, I don't feel much sympathy for them.
The article was right on on this point. This quote:
> Gilles Wullus of the group Reporters Without Borders told the BBC that the Gawker case poses a dire threat to press freedom. “Journalism ethics should be taken care of by journalists themselves,” he said. “In case they do not, we think that nobody else can do it in their place, neither states nor governments; especially not wealthy individuals.”
Seriously?? Just like they say, can you imagine the uproar if somebody said the same thing about petroleum industry executives?
Just as it should be. In the last few years or so, it seems there's been a steady push by journalists and media corporations to see how much they can get away with, ethics or newsworthiness be damned. And in a lot of cases, they got away with this purely because the people who were affected weren't rich enough to fight against the company's army of lawyers.
You can see this mindset quite fine in the answer to a question A.J. Daulerio (Gawker editor) was asked in court:
Interviewer: Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?
Daulerio: If they were a child
Interviewer: Under what age?
Daulerio: Four
That's not edited. He actually said that was where Gawker would draw in regards to what the minimum age for a sex tape featured on their site was. And that sort of thing is a trend in modern tabloid journalism. The idea that anything goes, privacy and ethics be damned as long as it gets clicka/the person affected is someone we don't like. In some cases, even if that means encouraging violence towards political opponents and riots.
This lawsuit will hopefully teach the media that freedom of the press doesn't mean 'anything goes, laws be damned'. Maybe it'll also encourage journalists and editors to think about the consequences of their actions rather than just how many page views they'll get...
I mean, he's clearly joking if you read the transcript. He's an idiot for having even made that joke, but still.
I think that whole conversation is a perfect example of why you have to be extremely careful when making tasteless jokes, especially in situations we typically think of as fairly serious (e.g. court).
The jury probably didn't think highly of Gawker after that exchange, either.
More than that for some, but a part of a court case that has implications in the law.
> Not telling people you were gay was a "pretty good guide to life" 20 years ago.
No clue where that came from, but I guess if you don't believe in oaths, it might work for you.
> You are right, but that doesn't mean you should disrespect people who break societies rules just for that.
> If you believe in the 'oath' it's different, but I feel like you should say that.
When you are "under oath" and lie, even if you think it is a joke, there are laws and penalties. It is an event in court room procedure. Even if you personally don't believe in oaths, the law and court procedure don't care.
I quite agree he isn't that big of a dumbass to post and underage sex tape, but he really needed to accord himself better in that setting under those circumstances.
Plus, its an important lesson for people. When dealing with a situation where your words will be interpreted by people you don't know with harsh penalties for lying or just sounding disreputable, you need to be precise and respectful with your words.
> In the last few years or so, it seems there's been a steady push by journalists and media corporations to see how much they can get away with, ethics or newsworthiness be damned.
C.f. also 'journalist shield' laws which give journalists special privilege not to testify that citizens in general do not have. As a matter of principle, I think that anyone should have the right to refuse to provide evidence to prosecute a case (I am okay with the idea of the defense being able to compel testimony); allowing some people to have such privilege but denying it to others sets a very bad precedent, akin to the old 'benefit of clergy.'
Rightfully so. Gawker was one the most obnoxious "news organisation" out there. But what is more shocking to me is how other news org are still defending Gawker, under the excuse of "free speech". I mean, one would think that the last thing all these prominent orgs would want is to be associated with Gawker in anyway, but no, they actually defended that rag and its owners.
I think there is actually a major conflict of interest going on. If you look, many of the news organizations that are decrying the Gawker verdict either have current or past ties to Gawker or have close family/friends that do.
I would imagine they are a bit worried because they have been pretty immune from lawsuits because of cost and court ruling protecting newspapers from even spreading false statements. When people who can crush others with just words on a page lose their immunity, they get very, very nervous of all the stuff they have written in haste over the years.
35 comments
[ 8.6 ms ] story [ 82.1 ms ] threadI'm thinking of doing the same with all of NPR's comments before they get deleted on Aug 23.
Looks like 1000 is not enough though. Next 'reminder' maybe place between <h2></h2>; 'blink' tag might not hurt either.
I don't want to get into a debate. She was just a product of life/business circumstances? I just remember a girl who who suddenly got depressed when other pretty girls were around, at work, or wherever. She was on a company vacation, but seeing her with so many seemingly desperate dudes, jerked me back into realty pretty quick. I never wanted a Amish girlfriend, but I didn't want a canieving, opportunist then, nor now. And yes--I guess it's a bit sexist? I had to include that last sentence. Why--just because.
She was a statistics/accounting major in college. She was always gauging her odds for seemingly everything. When I heard she got tired of San Francisco, and still wasen't married, I just had a hunch she would go to a place that she thought would up her her social desirability. I figured she thought Silicon Valley would be the place--a lot of ambitious white guys.
That's where she ended up. It was probally business related move, but I was so glad I saw her in that publication years ago. I believe it was called The Valley Wag in the day. It saved a lot of speculation, or what's the phrase--maybe regret over what could have been?
What does that mean "justice shopping" ? are you implying that Hulk Hogan lawsuit was frivolous or he somehow bought judges with Thiel's money ? can you be more specific ?
People have had medical procedures go wrong and been unlawfully murdered by law enforcement and gotten far and away less money.
The reason I use the term justice shopping is because Peter Theil had been unsuccessful at attempts to get back a Gawker for outing him in previous law suits. TBQH he's a hypocrite on the issue of gay rights.
Peter should stop making his sexuality everyone else's problem. So what someone said you were gay and you are gay. Big f-n deal. I'm gay myself.
Hulk Hogan made a movie and is mad it got released. If you don't want your movie released, you don't make it in the first place. He is a celebrity and knows the risks. This isn't some non-public figure.
I don't like the implications here that if the media reports on something you don't like, jamming up the court system with law suit after law suit is a viable option.
The other side on this case certainly wasn't out for justice, that seems clear. They were out for blood and revenge. And they got it.
Gawker fucked up a lot. But our media landscape is worse off without it.
so I don't know if they are the same "community"
Regardless of your opinion of Gawker, the precedent is that news publishers can successfully be destroyed if they make powerful enemies. Many news sites are already hesitant to report on powerful individuals, and now they are being proven that they were right to do so. For someone like me who believes that a free press is an important check on power, this is bad precedent to set.
Commenting on the legality of what Gawker or Hogan did is above my pay-grade. But a nine-figure judgment that might be overturned but has nevertheless destroyed the company is not a just response to the purported crime.
How can it not chill any journalistic organization?
I disagree that we're clearly worse off. For a good explanation on why, this is a pretty good read:
https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulato...
The thesis, for those less interested in buying the book, is that when we embraced blogs like Gawker and Buzzfeed as a source of news content, the quality of our news decreased drastically.
You went from sort of the New York Times subscription-based model, where people are subscribed already and your journalists can focus on the quality of your content, back to the days of "EXTRA! Read all about it," where everyone is just trying to be heard over the thousands of other available blogs.
So our headlines became clickbait, content became lies, and because it's so pervasive, there is little to no accountability.
The hogan case is important because it adds accountability.
The real elite are leftists, but that doesn't mean they're the same as the left. Witness how almost the whole DNC lined up against Bernie Sanders.
This sort of thing happens all the time, to many arguably undeserving people. It's only getting attention because it's happening to an organization that was supposed to be part of the Elite. As such, I don't feel much sympathy for them.
The article was right on on this point. This quote:
> Gilles Wullus of the group Reporters Without Borders told the BBC that the Gawker case poses a dire threat to press freedom. “Journalism ethics should be taken care of by journalists themselves,” he said. “In case they do not, we think that nobody else can do it in their place, neither states nor governments; especially not wealthy individuals.”
Seriously?? Just like they say, can you imagine the uproar if somebody said the same thing about petroleum industry executives?
You can see this mindset quite fine in the answer to a question A.J. Daulerio (Gawker editor) was asked in court:
Interviewer: Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?
Daulerio: If they were a child
Interviewer: Under what age?
Daulerio: Four
That's not edited. He actually said that was where Gawker would draw in regards to what the minimum age for a sex tape featured on their site was. And that sort of thing is a trend in modern tabloid journalism. The idea that anything goes, privacy and ethics be damned as long as it gets clicka/the person affected is someone we don't like. In some cases, even if that means encouraging violence towards political opponents and riots.
This lawsuit will hopefully teach the media that freedom of the press doesn't mean 'anything goes, laws be damned'. Maybe it'll also encourage journalists and editors to think about the consequences of their actions rather than just how many page views they'll get...
I think that whole conversation is a perfect example of why you have to be extremely careful when making tasteless jokes, especially in situations we typically think of as fairly serious (e.g. court).
The jury probably didn't think highly of Gawker after that exchange, either.
Any company stupid enough hire a person like that and place them in a position of authority deserves bankruptcy.
Arbitrary thing you are told to believe in.
Not telling people you were gay was a "pretty good guide to life" 20 years ago.
You are right, but that doesn't mean you should disrespect people who break societies rules just for that.
If you believe in the 'oath' it's different, but I feel like you should say that.
More than that for some, but a part of a court case that has implications in the law.
> Not telling people you were gay was a "pretty good guide to life" 20 years ago.
No clue where that came from, but I guess if you don't believe in oaths, it might work for you.
> You are right, but that doesn't mean you should disrespect people who break societies rules just for that.
> If you believe in the 'oath' it's different, but I feel like you should say that.
When you are "under oath" and lie, even if you think it is a joke, there are laws and penalties. It is an event in court room procedure. Even if you personally don't believe in oaths, the law and court procedure don't care.
I was just trying to point out that he didn't actually support sex tapes for 5 year olds.
He's a dumbass for trying to make a joke under oath, but not a dumbass who would post a 5 year-old's celebrity sex tape.
Plus, its an important lesson for people. When dealing with a situation where your words will be interpreted by people you don't know with harsh penalties for lying or just sounding disreputable, you need to be precise and respectful with your words.
C.f. also 'journalist shield' laws which give journalists special privilege not to testify that citizens in general do not have. As a matter of principle, I think that anyone should have the right to refuse to provide evidence to prosecute a case (I am okay with the idea of the defense being able to compel testimony); allowing some people to have such privilege but denying it to others sets a very bad precedent, akin to the old 'benefit of clergy.'