Gawker Media - Feat. Kotaku, Jezebel, and Friends

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Well it looks like Peter Theil has now revealed to the NY Times why he has decided to fund Hulk Hogan's fight against Gawker.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/b...aire-reveals-secret-war-with-gawker.html?_r=0

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment...-hulk-hogans-gawker-lawsuit/story?id=39384415

Choice section:
A 2007 article published by Gawker’s Valleywag blog was headlined, “Peter Thiel is totally gay, people.” That and a series of articles about his friends and others that he said “ruined people’s lives for no reason” drove Mr. Thiel to mount a clandestine war against Gawker. He funded a team of lawyers to find and help “victims” of the company’s coverage mount cases against Gawker.

“It’s less about revenge and more about specific deterrence,” he said on Wednesday in his first interview since his identity was revealed. “I saw Gawker pioneer a unique and incredibly damaging way of getting attention by bullying people even when there was no connection with the public interest.”

Mr. Thiel said that Gawker published articles that were “very painful and paralyzing for people who were targeted.” He said, “I thought it was worth fighting back.”

Mr. Thiel added: “I can defend myself. Most of the people they attack are not people in my category. They usually attack less prominent, far less wealthy people that simply can’t defend themselves.” He said that “even someone like Terry Bollea who is a millionaire and famous and a successful person didn’t quite have the resources to do this alone.”

Mr. Thiel said that he had decided several years ago to set his plan in motion. “I didn’t really want to do anything,” he said. “I thought it would do more harm to me than good. One of my friends convinced me that if I didn’t do something, nobody would.”

Mr. Thiel has donated money to the Committee to Protect Journalists and has often talked about protecting freedom of speech. He said he did not believe his actions were contradictory. “I refuse to believe that journalism means massive privacy violations,” he said. “I think much more highly of journalists than that. It’s precisely because I respect journalists that I do not believe they are endangered by fighting back against Gawker.”
Click to expand...

The guy is normally pro-press, but even he drew a line on Gawker's tactics.

Also the judge has denied Gawkers request for a retrial.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/b...-persuade-judge-to-retry-hulk-hogan-case.html
 
Denton's also trying to sell now. Good thing Thiel can afford the good lawyers. Not exactly the brave face Denton tries to put on.
 
Dynastia said:
Even Gawker haters should fear the strategy Peter Thiel is using to destroy Gawker

Nah, just garbagefaggot yellow journalists like you guys. Most 'gawker haters' don't make a habit of constantly breaking the law and hiding behind millions of dollars worth of lawyers, then pissing off billionaires enough to see justice done.
Click to expand...

The media really is circling the wagons a bit on this. They like to think of themselves as the 4th estate and being immune to this type of thing.

When they enable bad actors like Gawker, it weakens their case for their special protected status. Gawker is a clear example of media being used by awful people to hurt others for financial gain and no one really questioned it.

The media right now has a trust issue with many of their readers no longer believing them. Gawker is a significant part of that problem.

Every dirty act that Gawker commits and every dark lie they tell kills public trust in the media.
 
SunLightStreak said:
The media really is circling the wagons a bit on this. They like to think of themselves as the 4th estate and being immune to this type of thing.

When they enable bad actors like Gawker, it weakens their case for their special protected status. Gawker is a clear example of media being used by awful people to hurt others for financial gain and no one really questioned it.

The media right now has a trust issue with many of their readers no longer believing them. Gawker is a significant part of that problem.

Every dirty act that Gawker commits and every dark lie they tell kills public trust in the media.
Click to expand...

If they make their money by deliberately trolling internet spastics for clicks instead of producing actual news, it's pretty easy to see why they're terrified of the idea that making one rich enemy could end them.
 
Dynastia said:
If they make their money by deliberately trolling internet spastics for clicks instead of producing actual news, it's pretty easy to see why they're terrified of the idea that making one rich enemy could end them.
Click to expand...

We do it for free and with fewer resources. They should leave it to the professionals.
 
Dynastia said:
If they make their money by deliberately trolling internet spastics for clicks instead of producing actual news, it's pretty easy to see why they're terrified of the idea that making one rich enemy could end them.
Click to expand...

SunLightStreak said:
We do it for free and with fewer resources. They should leave it to the professionals.
Click to expand...
Shhhh, don't give Null ideas.
 
From the Vox article:

Funding lawsuits could give rich people a lot of power
Click to expand...

Pretty sure this already happened way before Gawker.

People talking like Gawker being a reputable site and bastion of good journalism when Nick Denton is as scummy as any tech millionare he went against.

There is no underdog here both a billionare slapfight, stuff that is not exactly new.
 
MiloWuCollusion said:
People talking like Gawker being a reputable site and bastion of good journalism when Nick Denton is as scummy as any tech millionare he went against.

There is no underdog here both a billionare slapfight, stuff that is not exactly new.
Click to expand...

They weren't really complimenting Denton, but they were treating him like a news site which is perhaps more of a compliment than he deserves.

Fact is that Denton is an internet troll and muckraker who had millions given to him to found a publication and profit from it. He runs a trolling media empire designed to get attention and profit from it.

People in the media feel threatened by it and for good reason. This does potentially make publications a lot more likely to tread carefully when dealing with the rich and powerful.

Still, I think they should be a lot more critical of Denton, because this was a case almost any other media outlet could have won if they were run by a more ethical person. His trolling endangers their ability in the public mind to justify their own very existence.
 
SunLightStreak said:
Also the judge has denied Gawkers request for a retrial.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/b...-persuade-judge-to-retry-hulk-hogan-case.html
Click to expand...

That isn't really shocking and was expected. This is the same judge who openly reviled Gawker at every stage in the process and incidentally, the most reversed judge in Pinellas County. This is quite a feat for the county housing the Church of Scientology, which mysteriously wins all the time in the county and gets reversed on appeal all the time.

Not saying this will be the case that bumps her up to 23 reversals, but her history is pretty bad.
 
I remember InternetAristocrat saying that Denton couldn't even sell Gawker on a yard sale. Now the time has come to find out.
 
AnOminous said:
That isn't really shocking and was expected. This is the same judge who openly reviled Gawker at every stage in the process and incidentally, the most reversed judge in Pinellas County. This is quite a feat for the county housing the Church of Scientology, which mysteriously wins all the time in the county and gets reversed on appeal all the time.

Not saying this will be the case that bumps her up to 23 reversals, but her history is pretty bad.
Click to expand...

She may be a repeatedly reversed judge, but Gawker's behavior during this trial is still well documented and I really doubt any other judge is going to be kinder to them.

Gawker's case was an opportunistic attempt to wrap themselves in the first amendment and the judge/jury was insulted by it. They chose to punish Gawker for its behavior. Gawker never took its duty as a publication that had as much audience as it did seriously. Harm for them was a part of the profit model for getting attention.

A judge may moderate the sentence, do you think they will get off unpunished for this? Do you think another judge will care if their plaintiff was secretly backed, either?

Arctic said:
I remember InternetAristocrat saying that Denton couldn't even sell Gawker on a yard sale. Now the time has come to find out.
Click to expand...

By the end, I think it will all go to a bankruptcy judge. My guess is that Theil may even back Gawker's creditors to seek more of what they are owed.

Nick Denton may be lucky to escape with even a single article of clothing of his own anymore. There won't be a lawn left for Mr. Denton to own to have a sale on.
 
SunLightStreak said:
She may be a repeatedly reversed judge, but Gawker's behavior during this trial is still well documented and I really doubt any other judge is going to be kinder to them.

Gawker's case was an opportunistic attempt to wrap themselves in the first amendment and the judge/jury was insulted by it. They chose to punish Gawker for its behavior. Gawker never took its duty as a publication that had as much audience as it did seriously. Harm for them was a part of the profit model for getting attention.

A judge may moderate the sentence, do you think they will get off unpunished for this? Do you think another judge will care if their plaintiff was secretly backed, either?



By the end, I think it will all go to a bankruptcy judge. My guess is that Theil may even back Gawker's creditors to seek more of what they are owed.

Nick Denton may be lucky to escape with even a single article of clothing of his own anymore. There won't be a lawn left for Mr. Denton to own to have a sale on.
Click to expand...
Unless I'm mistaken, he has no assets other than Gawker and that he was balls deep in student debt.
 
Rou said:
Unless I'm mistaken, he has no assets other than Gawker and that he was balls deep in student debt.
Click to expand...
A bit unorthodox to put all your eggs in one basket, especially when your business is breaking everyone else's eggs.
 
Henry Bemis said:
A bit unorthodox to put all your eggs in one basket, especially when your business is breaking everyone else's eggs.
Click to expand...

One thing has become abundantly clear throughout the course of this spectacle: Gawker was both founded and is entirely staffed by fucking morons.
 
SunLightStreak said:
A judge may moderate the sentence, do you think they will get off unpunished for this? Do you think another judge will care if their plaintiff was secretly backed, either?
Click to expand...

Possibly, although it's not easy to get a jury verdict reversed. There would have to have been legal mistakes leading up to it, because the jury's factual findings are usually assumed to be correct.

However, the same appeals court reversed the injunction from 2013 or so, which usually reflects an appeals court's general opinion of the merits of the case.

Lowering the damages seems almost a foregone conclusion, though. They're inflated beyond any reasonable estimation of what damages could possibly have occurred.

This could still leave a quite sizable verdict intact.

(Don't forget there's also a serious issue of Gawker's apparent contempt of court in leaking sealed material during the course of the trial. Just that could have serious civil or even criminal sanctions.)
 
Had a good giggle at this one. What a petulant little child.

Summed up best by one comment:

http://gawker.com/an-open-letter-to-peter-thiel-1778991227

"Honest question, Nick- what is the point of this piece? Are you trying to antagonize or de-escalate? Because antagonizing is simply not going to work, no matter how right you feel, and de-escalating would take all of one sentence: “We were wrong and we apologize.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom