Showing posts with label Gawker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gawker. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 02, 2016

Gawker and Hulk Hogan Reach $31 Million Settlement


Big news from the world of media as Hulk Hogan finally settled his invasion-of-privacy lawsuit against Gawker, putting an end to a case that could have dragged on for even more years in appeals courts. Hogan agreed to accept a portion of the $140 million judgment he won against Gawker and its CEO and founder, Nick Denton, over the publication of a sex tape he was featured in. (The verdict pushed the company to file for chapter 11 bankruptcy.) While I have long argued that Gawker was the bully who showed up to the playground only to discover its prey had brought a bigger kid along for backup, and that Hogan had a right to sue over this blog post, the fact that Gawker -- and Denton -- chose to settle a case for $31 million that many feel they could have eventually won on appeal shows just how dangerous it is to have a vindictive billionaire bankrolling a lawsuit, which can cost defendants millions of dollars and force them to relent even if they believe they are in the right. While this is a case of pox on both parties' houses, I hope more than anything that Denton can find a way to revive Gawker and that Thiel develops some thicker skin.

In a blog post, Denton, who was also found liable by a Florida jury for $10 million in damages in the case and filed for personal bankruptcy, said: “All-out legal war with Thiel would have cost too much, and hurt too many people, and there was no end in sight. The Valley billionaire, famously relentless, had committed publicly to support Hulk Hogan beyond the appeal and ‘until his final victory.’ Gawker’s nemesis was not going away.”

 Earlier this week, Thiel said at a panel discussion in Washington that he had decided to back Hogan's case against what he called a “singularly sociopathic bully” because ”single-digit millionaires” have “no effective access to our legal system.” (!)

Monday, August 22, 2016

Former Gawker Employee Reflects on Now-Defunct Site


Have been touched by the very kind (but mostly private) feedback I've gotten about my "How My Summer at a New York Tabloid Changed Me, or Why I Won't Miss Gawker Much" piece I wrote last week ... and thought former Gawker employee Josh David Stein's recent piece in The Guardian dovetailed on it nicely. Read highlights (lowlights?) HERE.

Friday, August 19, 2016

How My Summer at a New York Tabloid Changed Me, or Why I Won't Miss Gawker Much


It's unfortunate that it's come to this for Gawker -- was a 101-second video edit of Hulk Hogan having sex really worth going to the mat for? -- but not all that surprising. When I started my blog in 2005, I would sometimes get asked if I ever wished I could do it as my full-time occupation. The answer was an empathetic no -- I was two years into my dream job at The New York Times, and the idea of blogging from home without the camaraderie of a newsroom didn't appeal to me in the least. But when I got laid off in 2010, the idea of working for blog like Gawker definitely appealed to me. While I never got hired there -- God knows I tried! -- the equally snarky New York Post took a shine to me after reading some blog posts I submitted. ("You sound fun! Would you like to start Monday?" was the reply I got.) After years of copy-editing, writing and getting bylines in the nation's fifth-largest newspaper was exhilarating if not a little bit scary. But that summer started out with a bang, and before I knew it I was having the time of my life -- even being sought out by colleagues who wanted to compliment me on my witty turns of phrase or a funny lede I'd written


Writing about Naomi Campbell's blood-diamond trial and getting PAID for it? Sign me up! 

By the end of the summer, my totally fun boss was telling me she wanted to make an honest (wo)man of me. I had just turned 43, so was eager to be on staff again somewhere and told her I'd love to join the team. But then one night the news broke that the 17-year-old daughter of the U.S. ambassador to Thailand had died. She had apparently been out drinking at a nightclub in the Meatpacking District, and wound up at an after-hours party in a luxury high-rise building where she'd stepped out on the window ledge to take a selfie and plunged to her death. It was a tabloid's wet dream, and I happened to be the person assigned to write the piece while two others helped me pore through her social-media posts to get a better idea of who she was. 


As I looked through her Facebook pictures, I saw a pretty young girl with a lovely family and everything to live for. I thought of my own little sister and how I would call her when I got home from work. But deadline was approaching, so I submitted my first draft, perhaps written through the lens of a big brother. The editor on duty immediately came over to my desk and shouted, "What the hell is this?" I kind of froze, which angered him more, and before long the woman who had hired me (who was above him) came over to me. She tried to smooth things over and gave me an idea of what they were "looking for," My stomach turned to knots, but I knew I had to give it another shot. When she walked away, the angry editor started to urge me to include any vaguely racists comments she'd made on her social-media accounts ("This neighborhood is so ghetto" she posted from D.C.) and to rip her to shreds for being a girl of such privilege who squandered it all by being so spoiled and self-destructive. As I tried to craft the story, all I could think about were her distraught parents and her brother, who were undoubtedly in the midst of enduring the most painful thing anyone could imagine. 


The Herald Towers building where Nicole John died.


Although I knew the larger-than-life way she had died was newsworthy -- she fell out of a window and plummeted to her death in the middle of New York City -- I also knew she was a private citizen who did not deserve to be raked over the coals because of a bad decision she had made. One that had cost her her f**king life, no less. After another 15 or 20 punishing minutes, I finally turned in my revamped copy. I had never seen the show, but the woman who hired me had suggested a "Gossip Girl" angle so I just ran with it, still omitting many of the unsavory details my editor had insisted be included. 


The Village Voice didn't like what it saw, either.

I quietly slid out of the newsroom that night, and a much meaner version of my story ran on the front page the next morning with my name on it. And I never worked another day at the New York Post. The promised job still hadn't come to be, and I think it became obvious to everyone concerned that I just didn't have the stomach for it anyway. (Nasty blogger Kenneth, who was once banned from commenting on Gawker for being "too mean"!) All of this is a long way of saying my opinion of tabloid journalism changed dramatically that summer. And then watching what Gawker put (private citizens) Justine Sacco and David Geithner and writer Mary Elizabeth Williams through -- not to mention the countless number of other everyday people whose names I didn't remember who Gawker viciously took apart who had no way of fighting back (we recently learned how Gawker's then-editor mocked a young woman who begged the site to delete a video of her drunken sexual encounter inside a bar bathroom stall that the editor later acknowledged was "possibly rape") -- reiterated what I had somehow forgotten: that there are some boundaries in journalism that we must observe on our own no matter what rights are afforded us by the First Amendment. Everyone should be very concerned Peter Thiel is in a position to decide what constitutes journalism. But that doesn't mean another rich white man should be allowed to decide what's news (i.e., another man having sex in the privacy of his own home) and what's not with impunity. My feeling has long been that Nick Denton is like the bully who showed up at the playground only to find his prey brought along a bigger kid. And whether it's entirely fair or not, Gawker -- which The Washington Post reminds us had many talented writers -- came to symbolize that the anti-privacy/anti-decency pendulum had swung too far in the other direction. This is the reason I had long ago stopped regularly reading Gawker and why even its supportive new owners want nothing to do with it. Well, that and because it became boring, repetitive and seemed to think its Kristin Cavallari "coverage" was cute.

P.S.

Worth a read HERE.


And HERE.

UPDATE: Tom Scocca's Gawker Was Murdered by Gaslight explains why I may be wrong about all this.

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Rich Man, Poor Man


Ben Collins makes an excellent point. But which "rich person" is he referring to, Peter Thiel or Nick Denton? It's not like Nick Denton isn't the "Peter Thiel" to the people Gawker et al. has unfairly attacked who aren't wealthy enough to defend themselves, aka 99.9% of them. Peter Thiel is a disgusting human being. But that doesn't mean another rich guy should get to decide what is news and what isn't with impunity. 

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Page 1 Roundup (06/11)


Gawker files for bankruptcy protection ...


But Mensa member Michelle Malkin doesn't seem to understand that doesn't mean it's going away ...


Yes, praying for our president to die is really Christian ...




A Man, a Plan, a Mini Canal: Pilots Use ‘Toy’ Boats to Practice for Panama ...

Friday, June 10, 2016

Gawker Files for Chapter 11 Protection, Will Be Put Up for Auction


The Wall Street Journal reports:
Gawker Media Group went on the auction block on Friday after filing for bankruptcy when a Florida judge upheld a $140 million jury judgment against it in a costly legal battle with former professional wrestler Hulk Hogan. The company plans to sell its assets in bankruptcy court and has received an opening bid of $90 million from the digital-media company and magazine publisher Ziff Davis LLC, according to a person familiar with the matter. The filing marks a stunning turn for a 14-year-old business that was a pioneer in online media when it was launched by entrepreneur Nick Denton. Its aggressive and sometimes lurid style of tabloid reporting made it an object of media fascination as well as ire among the scores of enemies it made along the way. 
A sale became inevitable after the judge overseeing an invasion-of-privacy case brought by Hogan--whose real name is Terry Bollea--declined to issue a stay pending Gawker’s appeal. That opened the door for Mr. Bollea to conceivably take control of the company. Mr. Bollea had sued after Gawker published a video of him having sex with the wife of a Florida radio shock jock.
Gawker has no plans to cease operations while it continues to appeal. The judgment against Gawker Media is completely outsize, even if Hulk Hogan had a legitimate case.

Friday, June 03, 2016

Why the Ruling Against Gawker Isn't the Doomsday Scenario Some Are Making It Out to Be


I'm an editor for the oldest relic in the media book -- a newspaper -- and a gossipy blogger, so one might assume I am doubly outraged and concerned about the recent ruling against Gawker Media. But the truth of the matter is I'm not nearly as sold on the idea that it is such a slippery slope as self-proclaimed Gawker victim Stephen Marche ("Gawker Smeared Me, and Yet I Stand With It"), Boy Culture's Matthew #IStandWithGawker Rettenmund and most other journalists are.

Here's why: Terry Bollea (Hulk Hogan) didn't sue Gawker Media for libel or defamation of character, so the Sullivan rule isn't really what we're talking about here. (For non-First Amendment types, once you're a public figure, the burden for libel/defamation is "actual malice." which means the offender would have had to have published something "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.") Bollea sued for invasion of privacy, because the site posted footage of him having sex with a friend's wife in the privacy of his own home -- which he testified under oath he did not even know was being recorded. The right to privacy -- and expectation of privacy -- is an entirely different issue, and one that isn't forfeited just because you're famous. As a result, Gawker argued that the Hulk Hogan sex tape was "newsworthy," which I suppose could be said of anything a famous person does.

But if "newsworthy" items (obtained by any means possible) should always be protected, then why did the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals decide photographer Ron Galella had to keep any distance away from Jacqueline Onassis? Why did Peter Brandt feel the need to pay Jennifer Aniston to settle a lawsuit she filed against him alleging he invaded her privacy through "invasive, intrusive and unlawful measures" by photographing her in her home with a telephoto lens? And why stop there -- why was Erin Andrews allowed to sue a hotel chain when video of her dressing in one of its rooms was posted online? Because everyone -- even the rich and famous -- has a right to privacy in certain situations. (If we want to talk about how stupid juries are -- that they would award Bollea $140 million is absurd and should definitely be reduced by an appeals court -- then that's another thing all together. Sadly, these are the same people who will help pick our next president.)

But just because Bollea's backer turned out to be a thin-skinned Trump supporter doesn't mean Gawker didn't cross the line in this case. I get what people are afraid of here. But the idea that "Silicon Valley billionaires" are suddenly going to have this chilling effect on the media -- "censorship via threat of financial ruin" -- sounds pretty far-fetched, and reminds me a little bit of how many of us first reacted to Citizens United. Like Thiel, it completely sucks that it exists -- and we can all agree the world would be a better place without both. But in the end, the Koch brothers spent at least $400 million and Sheldon Adelson spent at least $150 million (and probably more that we'll never know about thanks to the shitty ruling) to defeat President Obama (and influence other races) in 2012 and came away with very little to show for it -- and the same thing's going to happen this year. (I do realize Citizens United hasn't bought any of the big elections, but has had a detrimental effect on state legislatures.) 

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not not with Gawker. But what exactly am I supposed to be so afraid of here? That Gawker can still say anything it wants about public figures -- Jack Dorsey, for instance -- but then can't also turn around and rip an unknown Twitter programmer (by name) to pieces -- which may very well constitute defamation against him/her -- without fear that this person might now occasionally have the means (via Thiel or whoever) to fight back? I'm OK with that.  

If the argument is that media outlets will go broke merely defending "frivolous" lawsuits, then this certainly isn't the "precedent setter" to fear opening the floodgates, because like it or not, the Hulk Hogan case is a legitimate one. Long before it got to this point, it started with Bollea asking them to take the video down. (I've been in the position many times and weigh the pros and cons of acquiescing before I do anything.) Gawker believed it was in the right and chose to hang its hat on this case, assuming it had the upper hand and then found out (the hard way) it didn't. Do I think no one has the right to challenge them just because a nut helped out? Of course not.  My feeling is Thiel can pump all the money he wants into his revenge lawsuits, but only the ones that would have succeeded on their merits anyway will end up prevailing. (Is it so hard to believe a jury fairly concluded Bollea's privacy was invaded here?)

Gawker has positioned itself as the David in this situation, nobly trying to defend freedom of the press, when in fact more often than not it is the Goliath. Just ask Justine Sacco. Or David Geithner. You know who agrees with me? Sam Biddle and Nick Denton ... of Gawker

Friday, July 17, 2015

Gawker Aids Disgruntled Prostitute in Extortion Plot, Then Has SecondThoughts


Even I -- the Thomas Roberts Manhunt guy -- thought THIS was beyond the pale. (I love that they let the extortionist remain anonymous, but dragged the client -- who is NOT a public figure and is NOT anti-gay -- through the mud.) After much backlash, Gawker management took the post down and "apologized," but now its editorial staff is saying they're not happy about that, either. What did you think about the whole fiasco?


Anyone else think the john is better looking than the whore?