darkinstinct
...lacks reading comprehension.
Do you think Kotaku can post freely? They are paid by Gawker/Denton, they say what their boss wants them to write.
Gawker (Kotaku parent) Files for Bankruptcy Protection, Ziff Davis (IGN) wants to buy
- Thread starter Jonboy
- Start date
Do you think Kotaku can post freely? They are paid by Gawker/Denton, they say what their boss wants them to write.
Nomadic Sparks
Banned
Not a huge fan of being seen by libertarians as a parasite that needs to be purged.
Not a huge fan of my voting/economic/medical rights be seen as expandable by conservatives.
Guess who the tech bros and their allies have been pallying around with?
QuantumBro
Banned
InsaneTiger
Member
Well, he is one of those.
Arkam
Member
No, not a fan of you lumping people into groups and assuming their thoughts. None of the above are inherent "planks/staples/etc" of either group you call out.
Really gross.
Can someone remind me again why it was OK to out the Conde Nosta guy? Why is it any of our business besides his own?
Ohhhh riiiight.
Clicks.
He was cheating on his wife.
Its funny though how Denton was actually rational in the Conde story but not this one lol.
Shadowplay1979
Member
I mean..this is where Kotaku got all its game news from anyway
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Actually, I don't think this response is terrible.
It's an interesting question with reporting. How do you deal with retractions and such in a digital age.
Which of course is terrible, but was it really Gawker's place to out him on that?
Nah, I don't think so.
partyphone
Banned
it's a shitty, selfish worldview.
LordRaptor
Member
"public interest" doesn't mean "interesting to the public" even though the same words are in there.
e:
Stuff like celebrity sextapes might be super interesting to the public, but theres no such thing as Public Prurience protections
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Makes them pretty much like the Gawker bros then I guess. Two peas in a pod.
Nomadic Sparks
Banned
lol that's not your ass either group sees as a corrupting influence on pure capitalism or representative democracy.
If Kotaku's going to be sold, isn't the boss not going to be the boss for much longer? Or am I confused? It seems to me that they could remain neutral for a short period of time, then they'd be totally in the clear since they're not connected to this legal issue.
And didn't Gawker already lose? I don't think they have to worry about "ongoing legal matters" when they already know the result; either Kotaku is dead or it's being sold.
As much as I hate libertarians, I don't think that entitles them to abuse.
InsaneTiger
Member
Joke or not, it's true. Gawker reporters have done a lot of good journalism. Like Totilo says:
The outing thing, I don't know. He was known to be gay in Silicon Valley. It just got spread beyond their iron curtain.
I thought they were considered a "bogus site?" What changed?
While cheating on your wife is wrong, it still doesn't give them carte blanche to out someone like they did.
A Google search shows Gawker really got blasted for that story and rightly so. So that probably had something to do with it.
Arkam
Member
That is VERY strongly worded statement. Care to expand so I can understand why you believe this?
I feel like the GAF rule of "we furiously hate Kotaku" is in dire need of a modern update. A lot of good comes from Kotaku.
GAF isn't a hive mind, but sometimes these unspoken rules spread to everyone including newcomers.
Edit: Not speaking about the Gawker ordeal, just Kotaku specifically.
GAF isn't a hive mind, but sometimes these unspoken rules spread to everyone including newcomers.
Edit: Not speaking about the Gawker ordeal, just Kotaku specifically.
Ghost Dad the Whip
Member
Yup
Round there they call me Kid Wholesome and this is what they get for never removing my "grey name" status....
Advertisers bailed on Gawker due to Conde Nast situation.
I wonder if you'd feel the same way if they posted a list of all the gay game developers they knew for no reason.
Ah yes, I can't believe forget about the advertisers.
That warranted them basically assisting the blackmailer?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Now that is 'ethics in journalism'.
lol
InsaneTiger
Member
Most game devs are not rich and powerful assholes with insane amounts of money and unaccountable power within the billionaire class and the ability to influence media with his money and power.
But outing someone no matter how rich and powerful? I'm on the fence.
He asked for their reasoning and I gave it. My opinion below that bit should have been enough to show how I stand on it. Heres a quote from Denton on the matter.
“The point of this story was not in my view sufficient to offset the embarrassment to the subject and his family, Accordingly, I have had the post taken down. It is the first time we have removed a significant news story for any reason other than factual error or legal settlement”
You didn't expect him to say the truth?
Sheriff_Battlesnake
Banned
Let them! Patrick Klepick is my hero.
Maiden Voyage
Gold™ Member
I hope everyone from Kotaku lands on their feet.
This certainly sucks for Kotaku, Deadspin, etc, but their owner rightfully got owned in this scenario. I feel bad for them in the same way I felt bad for Enron's employees. It had nothing to do with them, but this is how it's gotta be.
The complaints about Thiel would be valid if was using his money and influence to harm Gawker purely out of vengeance, but in this case he was on the right side of the legal battle helping someone who was legitimately harmed by Gawker's actions. If anything, it would be an affront to justice if Hogan didn't win. That said, the severity of the consequences was definitely manipulated to be maximized via legal tactics, but that could've been done with or without Thiel's help.
The complaints about Thiel would be valid if was using his money and influence to harm Gawker purely out of vengeance, but in this case he was on the right side of the legal battle helping someone who was legitimately harmed by Gawker's actions. If anything, it would be an affront to justice if Hogan didn't win. That said, the severity of the consequences was definitely manipulated to be maximized via legal tactics, but that could've been done with or without Thiel's help.
stephentotilo
Behind The Games
I'm sorry to have let you down. I don't love every story our sites have published, but I'm proud of plenty. I've worked at numerous media outlets that have run great stories and bad ones. That's how it is. The existence of a bad piece or an unpopular one or a controversial one or even one a jury doesn't approve of doesn't, in my mind, warrant the attempted destruction of a media outlet. I run Kotaku with an open ear to feedback. I listen to criticism, do my best to respond to it and try to improve the site in the process. Always have, always will. The Thiel stuff, though, is unusual. Without his maneuvering, we wouldn't be in this position. You can certainly say they were dominoes behind that, but if you read this piece, you will hopefully have a better sense of what I'm talking about: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac...er-thiel-plan-to-destroy-gawker/#7ad4692d5848
Sun Bather
Member
Yep that is one of the most disgusting pieces of journalism I have ever read.
So they are going to keep outing people that just so happen to work for their competition?
Wait a minute!
Y'all had the right video and the wrong video and decided to run with the wrong one to get more clicks. You had the chance to make it right but still disobeyed. You dug your own graves.
Nomadic Sparks
Banned
Libertarians tend to use their intelligence for their own gains and fuck what others think.
They have unearned sense of superiority just because they think they're smarter then the average person and will tend to fuck that person over repeatedly "for the lulz"
These same people tend to think ethics and basic laws are elaborate jokes that they blow off because they think they're better then the average person.
Their whole mindset is based on selfishness, superiority and apathy for others.
But hey Gawker's done some great stories too! That totally excuses some negatives along the way.
/s
orthodoxy1095
Banned
If only it was a single bad piece of media, people might be more inclined to sympathy. One, two, even three mistakes might be within the realm of a forgivable offenses.
Except Gawker has been embroiled in controversy for nearly a decade. Comeuppance gets around at some point.
Arkam
Member
partyphone = Nomadic Sparks? Or are you just answering for them?
If the charges were bogus, courts were bought or it was a case of billionaire silencing legit investigative journalism, there would be a point.
But what we have here is the financing of a legitimate case over some of the trashiest journalism possible.
So no, sympathy is not warranted and you cannot hide behind freedom of press for that
orthodoxy1095
Banned
This post is kind of funny because you're targeting Thiel's politics, when the bolded clearly describes the company (Gakwer) he targeted as well.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I think you mean Sociopaths, which are found in all political demographics. Since a lot of intelligent, narcissistic sociopaths crave power and control.
Ironic, isn't it?
Nomadic Sparks
Banned
Yeah
I'd have sympathy if the end results weren't so richly deserved.
I suppose the best outcome would be ZD buying it, getting rid of all the people who made these decisions in the past, plastering the sites with Doritos and Mountain Dew adverts and ensuring some people get to keep their jobs.
I suppose the best outcome would be ZD buying it, getting rid of all the people who made these decisions in the past, plastering the sites with Doritos and Mountain Dew adverts and ensuring some people get to keep their jobs.
partyphone
Banned
no but I agree with it. libertarianism is a very "fuck you, got mine" philosophy. it's mostly privileged white men who think private wealth and power should run everything.
i don't like anyone on either side of this debate which is why I choose to stand by the basic principles of the first amendment. as long as we have free speech and free press there will be shitty tabloids.
Similar threads
- Locked