Support NeoGAF

[Tacitus_]

Um. You're totally wrong here. Thiel had no prior connection to Hogan before this lawsuit, and saw Hogan as a means to an end. That end? Bury Gawker.

It was absolutely an abuse of power.

Wouldn't have happened had Gawker not dug their own grave and told the court "that's a nice pile of dirt next to our grave".

 

[razgriz417]

Nice, hulk maybe a racist ass hat but glad AJ and Gawker got what's coming to them. Serves AJ righT for the shit he pulled while on the stand, he dug his own grave

 

[Kayhan]

What a beautiful example of pure justice.

Gawker apologists, please reevaluate your lives.

 

[D4Danger]

Um. You're totally wrong here. Thiel had no prior connection to Hogan before this lawsuit, and saw Hogan as a means to an end. That end? Bury Gawker.

It was absolutely an abuse of power.

the only abuse of power here was Gawker posting someone's private video and then laughing at a judge when they were told to take it down. This is a self-inflicted wound.

 

[CDX]

Um. You're totally wrong here. Thiel had no prior connection to Hogan before this lawsuit, and saw Hogan as a means to an end. That end? Bury Gawker.

It was absolutely an abuse of power.

I strongly disagree.

A billionaire didn't just do this to an INNOCENT Gawker. Gawker did shitty things. Gawker continued to do shitty things. Gawker knowingly did this and continued to do this because they knew lawsuits were EXPENSIVE even for celebrities, and the most they'd likely suffer was a cash settlement.

The wrong here is that it takes absolutely enormous amounts of money to effectively use the court system. THAT IS WRONG. Not that a Billionaire was able to use the court system effectively. Even the poorest of the poor should be able to have their day in court against a large corporation.

The fact that people think large corporations should be able to use their vast wealth to shield them from court, to the point that only Billionaires have a shot at using the court is just absolutely crazy IMO.

If Gawker didn't do this shitty thing there would have been no court case for Hogan. PERIOD. So Billionaire or not it wouldn't have mattered.

 

[Bboy AJ]

If Gawker didn't do this shitty thing there would have been no court case for Hogan. PERIOD. So Billionaire or not it wouldn't have mattered.

? He's not disagreeing with this case. He's disagreeing with the process. And he's absolutely right.

 

[The Hobo]

Um. You're totally wrong here. Thiel had no prior connection to Hogan before this lawsuit, and saw Hogan as a means to an end. That end? Bury Gawker.

It was absolutely an abuse of power.

I'm not wrong at all. Thiel put up money for Hogan's lawsuit, but that's not what buried Gawker. Gawker's own actions buried them.

 

[Tom_Cody]

From Reddit:

Fuck Daulerio, fuck Gawker.

Someone is finally holding them accountable for their actions.

 

[patapuf]

? He's not disagreeing with this case. He's disagreeing with the process. And he's absolutely right.

meh, the process is ifne.

The issue is your average guy can't go to court vs big corporation due to money constraints, not that the billionaire can.

 

[BronsonLee]

I still can't believe this case turned out the way it did

Hogan gets a case, most people think they'll just settle
Hogan starts making plays that would seemingly prevent a quick settlement
Hogan gets the case in a court very favorable to him
Wait, what the fuck did AJ just say
Oh my god Denton just dug the grave
HOGAN JUST DROPPED THE BIG LEG ON GAWKER
AND IT WAS THIEL ALL ALONG

You couldn't have made it more pro wrestling if you had tried

 

[diaspora]

Um. You're totally wrong here. Thiel had no prior connection to Hogan before this lawsuit, and saw Hogan as a means to an end. That end? Bury Gawker.

It was absolutely an abuse of power.

By who? This all started with Gawker ignoring the court and posting a sex tape in their site.

 

[Tom_Cody]

I'm not wrong at all. Thiel put up money for Hogan's lawsuit, but that's not what buried Gawker. Gawker's own actions buried them.

Absolutely

 

[Hickbilly Deluxe]

Um. You're totally wrong here. Thiel had no prior connection to Hogan before this lawsuit, and saw Hogan as a means to an end. That end? Bury Gawker.

It was absolutely an abuse of power.

He wouldn't have been able to do anything if Gawker hadn't gone full stupid and posted the sex tape after being told not to, and then proceeded to take everything as a joke and half ass their way through court even after all their lawyers warned them they were in deep shit. Thiel didn't abuse anything, he took advantage of a situation to punish Gawker for all the stunts they have pulled, but mostly out of revenge. If Gawker had played it safe and by the rules, he wouldn't have been able to do anything and they wouldn't be in this situation.

Short and sweet: Gawker set themselves up to get their shit wrecked by a billionaire they pissed off, and he (rightfully, imo) took advantage of it.

 

[n0razi]

Can anyone explain how a 42yr old former editor in chief of gawker only has to his name:

- $1500 in savings
- a handful of worthless stocks
- $40k in college debt
- no car
- no house
- no retirement funds

Wtf has he been doing all this time? I think the typical 25yr old GAFer has more assets than this guy.

 

[Inspector Jones]

Absolutely

Anytime someone tries to defend Gawker, all you have to do is show this headline. They had their chance to avoid this and they let everyone know that they chose to defy the court. Not to mention all of the shady stuff they've done in the past and I just want to see the whole thing continue to burn.

 

[Joni]

Anytime someone tries to defend Gawker, all you have to do is show this headline. They had their chance to avoid this and they let everyone know that they chose to defy the court. Not to mention all of the shady stuff they've done in the past and I just want to see the whole thing continue to burn.

And remind them that Gawker thought the sex was the more important element, compared to the racist tirade.

 

[EightBitNate]

People saying we should be worried about billionaires having an effect on journalistic integrity is really funny when the company we're talking about is Gawker. It's hardly journalism at all.

 

[Kayhan]

Can anyone explain how a 42yr old former editor in chief of gawker only has to his name:

- $1500 in savings
- a handful of worthless stocks
- $40k in college debt
- no car
- no house
- no retirement funds

Wtf has he been doing all this time? I think the typical 25yr old GAFer has more assets than this guy.

- no future

 

[Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!]

Wrestlemania 33 next year will be in Florida - Hogan's home state.

He'll be there to tear off a shirt and get the name of the venue wrong.

Hulk Hogan's from Venice Beach California don't ruin the illusion for me man

 

[Kuros]

Can anyone explain how a 42yr old former editor in chief of gawker only has to his name:

- $1500 in savings
- a handful of worthless stocks
- $40k in college debt
- no car
- no house
- no retirement funds

Wtf has he been doing all this time? I think the typical 25yr old GAFer has more assets than this guy.

Everything shifted into his partners name probably.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Absolutely

The took down the video. People constantly get this wrong

http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-po-481328088

A lawful order from a circuit court judge is a serious thing. While we vehemently disagree with Campbell's order with respect to the video itself, we have chosen to take it down pending our appeal.

But the portion of the order compelling us to remove the entirety of Daulerio's post—his words, his speech—is grossly unconstitutional. We won't take it down.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

People saying we should be worried about billionaires having an effect on journalistic integrity is really funny when the company we're talking about is Gawker. It's hardly journalism at all.

This is frankly bullshit
http://gawker.com/heres-what-gawker-media-does-1779858799

But the notion that Gawker Media—the company, encompassing seven web sites, that Thiel is attempting to permanently silence—is best understood as a platform for spewing hatred, or for bullying, is at odds with our own experience. And we can’t help but conclude it is at odds with a lot of other people’s experience. If our lengthy published record of news, essays, investigations, satire, and criticism is “not journalism,” as the refrain goes, then why has so much of it been cited, amplified, and followed by our more respectable establishment peers? If we aim for nothing but cruelty, or nothing but clicks, why have our writers drawn so many of the finest (or most well-remunerated) writers in the rest of the business to engage with our work?

Journalism is as journalism does. Anyone moved to dismiss the million-plus stories that we have published over the years as nothing more than “gutter journalism” ought to account for the by-no-means-comprehensive sampling of posts below, which we have arranged along with examples of the contemporaneous reaction to, praise for, and impact of the work. There are countless other posts that could join them. This is what Peter Thiel is trying to destroy.

 

[Stallion Dan]

Why the hell do they need to reconcile with Hogan?

Dude's too old to be anything but a relic. WWE (and the fans) stands to gain nothing. I mean, I just can't see any justification to make such a risky move after what Hogan is now known for.

Hogan is still the face of wrestling for several generations of wrestling fans.

 

[Tacitus_]

This is frankly bullshit
http://gawker.com/heres-what-gawker-media-does-1779858799

http://nypost.com/2016/03/09/gawker-editors-line-a-sex-tape-of-a-4-year-old/

“Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?”

Daulerio answered flatly, “If they were a child.”

“Under what age?” attorney Charles Harder asked.

“Four,” he said.

Burn it to the ground and scatter the ashes.

 

[sikkinixx]

http://nypost.com/2016/03/09/gawker-editors-line-a-sex-tape-of-a-4-year-old/



Burn it to the ground and scatter the ashes.

yeah but he was tired and thought the questions were stupid, he was only being sarcastic! Jury can't understand that

Spoiler

fucking dipshit. The way Gawker handled this all like it was a joke is why I have little sympathy for them

 

[The Hobo]

Their behaviour during the court case was something else. It's like they had assured themselves they were definitely going to win and just decided to not even try.

 

[Dick Justice]

Let me also point out they also broke the news regarding Hillary's e-mail server, Facebook's censor algorithms...oh fuck it, it's not worth arguing over this, is it?

Yup, completely makes up for the rest of their bullshit. But please, feel free to continue fellating Gawker over this sorry mess.

Um. You're totally wrong here. Thiel had no prior connection to Hogan before this lawsuit, and saw Hogan as a means to an end. That end? Bury Gawker.

It was absolutely an abuse of power.

Guy uses his money to wage a legal battle against a shitstain of a company. Abuse of power? Cry me a fucking river.

 

[Mask]

Hopefully the few decent writers that Kotaku have get hired by better outlets, but almost every site that Gawker owns has pulled shady shit or made some stupid, reactionary and sometimes disgusting articles, so they won't be missed.

Gawker brought this on themselves anyway, and even many of the writers and editors supported the disgusting shit they did, so no sympathy from me. As much as people like to say this sets a disturbing trend for billionaires shutting down news outlets, this is a completely different situation, and I don't think other outlets will be stupid enough to flaunt court orders or aid in blackmail like Gawker did.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Gonna point to what happened with Mother Jones, then.

You're talking VanderSloot right?

But, and correct me if I'm wrong, nothing happened with that case. The billionaire lost. The legal process prevailed.

People saying we should be worried about billionaires having an effect on journalistic integrity is really funny when the company we're talking about is Gawker. It's hardly journalism at all.

This is also true.

For all the "good" they've done, they've dragged it down by a decade's worth of shitty behavior and reprehensible actions that any freshman journalism student knows not to do.

This is frankly bullshit
http://gawker.com/heres-what-gawker-media-does-1779858799

Gawker Stalker.

The bizarre Christine O'Donnell story.

Possibly not paying interns properly.

Posting Hogans' sex tape.

The Condé Nast CFO story.

Leaving up a video of a possible rape even after victim requested it be removed.

Outing Peter Thiel.

I mean, those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. It's not a journalistic site. It's a freaking rag.

 

[Calamari41]

People funding other people's lawsuits is not an abuse of power. Just ask the ACLU.

 

[EightBitNate]

This is frankly bullshit
http://gawker.com/heres-what-gawker-media-does-1779858799

I don't know what this is supposed to prove. Of course they'd call their own shitty brand of reporting "journalism". Talk about a biased source. The defense I'm seeing from their article is "if we're not journalism, then why have so many other websites reported on similar things that we reported on?" What kind of rebuttal is that? Gawker media is what a trashy tabloid would be if it tried to pretend to be a serious news source.

Let's talk about a few things Gawker media has done over the years, shall we?

1. Gizmodo purchased a stolen iPhone prototype, then deliberately outed the name and face of the employee who lost it.

2. Deadspin published nude photos of footballer Brett Favre from an off-the-record source.

3. Gawker posted an alleged account of a one-night stand with a female politician in order to slander her through sexism.

4. Gizmodo intentionally ruined press events they were invited to by fucking with the TVs because...of some reason.

5. Gawker advocated for the right to stalk celebrities.

6. Gawker gay-shamed a married CFO and outed him because they could.

7. They've had editors admit it was ok to lie for clicks.

8. They love to write about the private lives of just about everyone, but play it silent when one of their own editors is arrested on domestic abuse charges.

9. Jezebel's blatant hypocrisy over the takedown of a celebrity's nudes despite being part of a network which advocated for it.

10. They built a script that fed lines of Mein Kampf into one of Coca-Cola's Twitter campaigns because of...some other reason?

In terms of grimy shit they've done as a company, they're constantly whining about companies not be transparent while they themselves are registered in the Cayman Islands, hid assets, and defended the publication of children pornography if it were 'newsworthy'.

I really just don't have any patience for people who legitimately try to defend them.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

I don't know what this is supposed to prove. Of course they'd call their own shitty brand of reporting "journalism". Talk about a biased source. The defense I'm seeing from their article is "if we're not journalism, then why have so many other websites reported on similar things that we reported on?" What kind of rebuttal is that? Gawker media is what a trashy tabloid would be if it tried to pretend to be a serious news source.

Let's talk about a few things Gawker media has done over the years, shall we?

1. Gizmodo purchased a stolen iPhone prototype, then deliberately outed the name and face of the employee who lost it.

2. Deadspin published nude photos of footballer Brett Favre from an off-the-record source.

3. Gawker posted an alleged account of a one-night stand with a female politician in order to slander her through sexism.

4. Gizmodo intentionally ruined press events they were invited to by fucking with the TVs because...of some reason.

5. Gawker advocated for the right to stalk celebrities.

6. Gawker gay-shamed a married CFO and outed him because they could.

7. They've had editors admit it was ok to lie for clicks.

8. They love to write about the private lives of just about everyone, but play it silent when one of their own editors is arrested on domestic abuse charges.

9. Jezebel's blatant hypocrisy over the takedown of a celebrity's nudes despite being part of a network which advocated for it.

10. They built a script that fed lines of Mein Kampf into one of Coca-Cola's Twitter campaigns because of...some other reason?

11. Kotaku was blacklisted by Ubisoft and Bethesda for leaking confidential information on more than 1 occasion.

In terms of grimy shit they've done as a company, they're constantly whining about companies not be transparent while they themselves are registered in the Cayman Islands, hid assets, and defended the publication of children pornography if it were 'newsworthy'.

I really just don't have any patience for people who legitimately try to defend them.

Lol, I knew there were even more than the ones I thought of.

What a rag indeed.

 

[Patryn]

I don't know what this is supposed to prove. Of course they'd call their own shitty brand of reporting "journalism". Talk about a biased source. The defense I'm seeing from their article is "if we're not journalism, then why have so many other websites reported on similar things that we reported on?" What kind of rebuttal is that? Gawker media is what a trashy tabloid would be if it tried to pretend to be a serious news source.

Let's talk about a few things Gawker media has done over the years, shall we?

1. Gizmodo purchased a stolen iPhone prototype, then deliberately outed the name and face of the employee who lost it.

2. Deadspin published nude photos of footballer Brett Favre from an off-the-record source.

3. Gawker posted an alleged account of a one-night stand with a female politician in order to slander her through sexism.

4. Gizmodo intentionally ruined press events they were invited to by fucking with the TVs because...of some reason.

5. Gawker advocated for the right to stalk celebrities.

6. Gawker gay-shamed a married CFO and outed him because they could.

7. They've had editors admit it was ok to lie for clicks.

8. They love to write about the private lives of just about everyone, but play it silent when one of their own editors is arrested on domestic abuse charges.

9. Jezebel's blatant hypocrisy over the takedown of a celebrity's nudes despite being part of a network which advocated for it.

10. They built a script that fed lines of Mein Kampf into one of Coca-Cola's Twitter campaigns because of...some other reason?

11. Kotaku was blacklisted by Ubisoft and Bethesda for leaking confidential information on more than 1 occasion.

In terms of grimy shit they've done as a company, they're constantly whining about companies not be transparent while they themselves are registered in the Cayman Islands, hid assets, and defended the publication of children pornography if it were 'newsworthy'.

I really just don't have any patience for people who legitimately try to defend them.

I take issue with 7, which is clearly presented as a joke when looking at the tweets and not this grave pronouncement you portray it being, and 11, which is them actually doing some reporting.

Game sites are not required to abide by publisher PR schedules. Similarly, Ubi and Bethesda are allowed to black list them. But to compare them releasing that stuff to outing a closeted gay CEO is a stretch beyond even Stretch Armstrong's reach.

You're accurate on the rest, however.

 

[Cagey]

The myth of Gawker as a plucky underfunded underdog against an evil billionaire buying influence and spending them into oblivion to crush the fourth estate is absurd.

A company worth a few hundred million isn't a helpless David against a vindictive libertarian (evil!) billionaire (super evil!) Goliath.

Scummy Goliath versus Vindictive Goliath squared off in a courtroom. One Goliath is bigger. The judge didn't rule in favor of Vindictive Goliath because of size.

People funding other people's lawsuits is not an abuse of power. Just ask the ACLU.

But they're not people we dislike so it's different.

 

[RBH]

I don't know what this is supposed to prove. Of course they'd call their own shitty brand of reporting "journalism". Talk about a biased source. The defense I'm seeing from their article is "if we're not journalism, then why have so many other websites reported on similar things that we reported on?" What kind of rebuttal is that? Gawker media is what a trashy tabloid would be if it tried to pretend to be a serious news source.

Let's talk about a few things Gawker media has done over the years, shall we?

1. Gizmodo purchased a stolen iPhone prototype, then deliberately outed the name and face of the employee who lost it.

2. Deadspin published nude photos of footballer Brett Favre from an off-the-record source.

3. Gawker posted an alleged account of a one-night stand with a female politician in order to slander her through sexism.

4. Gizmodo intentionally ruined press events they were invited to by fucking with the TVs because...of some reason.

5. Gawker advocated for the right to stalk celebrities.

6. Gawker gay-shamed a married CFO and outed him because they could.

7. They've had editors admit it was ok to lie for clicks.

8. They love to write about the private lives of just about everyone, but play it silent when one of their own editors is arrested on domestic abuse charges.

9. Jezebel's blatant hypocrisy over the takedown of a celebrity's nudes despite being part of a network which advocated for it.

10. They built a script that fed lines of Mein Kampf into one of Coca-Cola's Twitter campaigns because of...some other reason?

11. Kotaku was blacklisted by Ubisoft and Bethesda for leaking confidential information on more than 1 occasion.

In terms of grimy shit they've done as a company, they're constantly whining about companies not be transparent while they themselves are registered in the Cayman Islands, hid assets, and defended the publication of children pornography if it were 'newsworthy'.

I really just don't have any patience for people who legitimately try to defend them.

 

[Armaros]

The myth of Gawker as a plucky underfunded underdog against an evil billionaire buying influence and spending them into oblivion to crush the fourth estate is absurd.

A company worth a few hundred million isn't a helpless David against a vindictive libertarian (evil!) billionaire (super evil!) Goliath.

Scummy Goliath versus Vindictive Goliath squared off in a courtroom. One Goliath is bigger. The judge didn't rule in favor of Vindictive Goliath because of size.


But they're not people we dislike so it's different.

The irony being that without someone funding the lawsuit. Gawker would have buried Hogan in an extended legal process with their legal war chest.

What they accuse Thiel of doing to gawker.

 

[Cagey]

The irony being that without someone funding the lawsuit. Gawker would have buried Hogan in an extended legal process with their legal war chest.

Precisely. The flip side of crying that a rich person could fund litigation that bankrupted Gawker is that they want a system where ordinary people can't avail themselves of the legal system.

In reality, some people here are upset that a billionaire libertarian and a guy who said nigger a few dozen times on a sex tape won, and they don't want to be on their side, even if they're correct, because it offends their personal sensibilities and sense of moral righteousness.

Months ago there were a few posts in here equating approving this verdict with approving of Gamergate because of the Kotaku angle. Myopic gamer nonsense.

 

[cartographer]

11. Kotaku was blacklisted by Ubisoft and Bethesda for leaking confidential information on more than 1 occasion.

I suppose this is nitpicking but this is just them doing their jobs and Bethesda and Ubisoft not liking it because it doesn't fit into their marketing plan.

I understand most complaints about Gawker Media and its individual sites but putting this in the same list as the Conde Nast executive is super weird. It's not like you needed to add anything to the list to make it more comprehensive, either. There's plenty of examples to go to.

 

[EightBitNate]

I suppose this is nitpicking but this is just them doing their jobs and Bethesda and Ubisoft not liking it because it doesn't fit into their marketing plan.

I understand most complaints about Gawker Media and its individual sites but putting this in the same list as the Conde Nast executive is super weird. It's not like you needed to add anything to the list to make it more comprehensive, either. There's plenty of examples to go to.

I wanted to demonstrate how shitty Kotaku was and that was the latest scandal in my mind lol

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

I don't know what this is supposed to prove. Of course they'd call their own shitty brand of reporting "journalism". Talk about a biased source. The defense I'm seeing from their article is "if we're not journalism, then why have so many other websites reported on similar things that we reported on?" What kind of rebuttal is that? Gawker media is what a trashy tabloid would be if it tried to pretend to be a serious news source.

Let's talk about a few things Gawker media has done over the years, shall we?

1. Gizmodo purchased a stolen iPhone prototype, then deliberately outed the name and face of the employee who lost it.

2. Deadspin published nude photos of footballer Brett Favre from an off-the-record source.

3. Gawker posted an alleged account of a one-night stand with a female politician in order to slander her through sexism.

4. Gizmodo intentionally ruined press events they were invited to by fucking with the TVs because...of some reason.

5. Gawker advocated for the right to stalk celebrities.

6. Gawker gay-shamed a married CFO and outed him because they could.

7. They've had editors admit it was ok to lie for clicks.

8. They love to write about the private lives of just about everyone, but play it silent when one of their own editors is arrested on domestic abuse charges.

9. Jezebel's blatant hypocrisy over the takedown of a celebrity's nudes despite being part of a network which advocated for it.

10. They built a script that fed lines of Mein Kampf into one of Coca-Cola's Twitter campaigns because of...some other reason?

11. Kotaku was blacklisted by Ubisoft and Bethesda for leaking confidential information on more than 1 occasion.

In terms of grimy shit they've done as a company, they're constantly whining about companies not be transparent while they themselves are registered in the Cayman Islands, hid assets, and defended the publication of children pornography if it were 'newsworthy'.

I really just don't have any patience for people who legitimately try to defend them.

This should be posted every where.

 

[cartographer]

I wanted to demonstrate how shitty Kotaku was and that was the latest scandal in my mind lol

You think that demonstrates them being shitty? Why / how?

 

[Tripon]

Pactria Hernandez writing positive coverage of her roommate video game and not mentioning their relationship in the articles is a bigger grievance.

 

[Patryn]

I wanted to demonstrate how shitty Kotaku was and that was the latest scandal in my mind lol

If that's the latest scandal, and it's not even a scandal, then is Kotaku really that shitty?

It's been years since Crecente ran it. I don't understand why it still has such a shit reputation. Press Sneak Fuck does a massive amount of great work over there.

 

[EightBitNate]

You think that demonstrates them being shitty? Why / how?

If that's the latest scandal, and it's not even a scandal, then is Kotaku really that shitty?

It's been years since Crecente ran it. I don't understand why it still has such a shit reputation. Press Sneak Fuck does a massive amount of great work over there.

Kotaku is a shitty site in general. Nothing really rivals outing someone, but they post the worst articles I've ever seen.

 

[cartographer]

Kotaku is a shitty site in general. Nothing really rivals outing someone, but they post the worst articles I've ever seen.

Are you not interested in answering my previous question? It's OK if you're not.

 

[Euphor!a]

You think that demonstrates them being shitty? Why / how?

That it is completely self-serving? It doesn't benefit consumers. It doesn't benefit the creators. All it does give them clicks.

 

[EightBitNate]

Are you not interested in answering my previous question? It's OK if you're not.

I agreed that it was misplaced in the list, but it's literally the last controversy I remember reading that involved them. I didn't know a whole lot about that specific story but I guess it doesn't actually demonstrate bad journalism. I've edited it out.

That it is completely self-serving? It doesn't benefit consumers. It doesn't benefit the creators. All it does give them clicks.

Edit: you do have a point there.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

I'll say this for Kotaku, it runs some real garbage. Like just nonsense and trash that make my head hurt.

But, I don't think I've ever seen anything there as bad as like what's been posted on Gawker itself. They don't even come close to the sex tapes, stalking, outing sex lives and general shittbaggery that Gawker does.

 

[JCizzle]

You're talking VanderSloot right?

But, and correct me if I'm wrong, nothing happened with that case. The billionaire lost. The legal process prevailed.

This is also true.

For all the "good" they've done, they've dragged it down by a decade's worth of shitty behavior and reprehensible actions that any freshman journalism student knows not to do.

Gawker Stalker.

The bizarre Christine O'Donnell story.

Possibly not paying interns properly.

Posting Hogans' sex tape.

The Condé Nast CFO story.

Leaving up a video of a possible rape even after victim requested it be removed.

Outing Peter Thiel.

I mean, those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. It's not a journalistic site. It's a freaking rag.

Did the accuser pay for the millions in legal fees that Mother Jones accumulated? Just because justice prevailed in one way doesn't necessarily mean they escaped unscathed.

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vandersloot-melaleuca-lawsuit

Since then, Mother Jones and our insurance company have had to spend at least $2.5 million defending ourselves. That's money we can't get back, since Idaho doesn't have an anti-SLAPP statute that might open the door for recovering attorney's fees in a case like this. We also paid for the defense of Zuckerman, whom VanderSloot sued halfway through the case for talking to Rachel Maddow about his experience. (VanderSloot did not sue MSNBC or its deep-pocketed parent company, Comcast. Make of that what you will.)

Here's a moment that gives you a sense of what it was like. At one point, Zuckerman was subjected to roughly 10 hours of grilling by VanderSloot's lawyers about every detail of the controversy in Idaho Falls, including the breakup with his boyfriend of five years. (VanderSloot also threatened to sue the ex-boyfriend, backing off only after he recanted statements he'd made about the Boy Scouts episode.) As the lawyers kept probing, Zuckerman broke down and cried as he testified that the time after the ads appeared was one of the darkest periods of his life. VanderSloot, who had flown to Portland for the occasion, sternly looked on. (His lawsuit against Zuckerman is ongoing.)

And that wasn't the end of it. VanderSloot's legal team subpoenaed the Obama campaign, which had run ads naming him as a major Republican donor. Apparently they believed we had somehow fed the campaign that information—never mind that our article, and the Federal Election Commission data that prompted it—was on the internet for anyone to read.

When officials from the Obama campaign refused to turn over their records—offering to confirm under oath that there had been no communication between them and Mother Jones—VanderSloot's lawyers dragged them into court, resulting in the spectacle of a major GOP donor seeking access to the Democratic campaign's emails. His lawyers did the same thing to a political researcher who had gathered information on VanderSloot and who also had no connection to Mother Jones.

This kind of legal onslaught is enormously taxing. Last spring, Lowell Bergman, the legendary 60 Minutes producer (whose story of exposing Big Tobacco was chronicled in the Oscar-nominated film The Insider), talked about a "chill in the air" as investigative reporters confront billionaires who can hurt a news organization profoundly whether or not they win in court: "There are individuals and institutions with very deep pockets and unaccountable private power who don't like the way we report. One example is a case involving Mother Jones…A superrich plaintiff is spending millions of dollars while he bleeds the magazine and ties up its staff."

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/26/11772856/peter-thiel-gawker-war

What was really ominous was what happened after VanderSloot's loss. He "announced that he was setting up a $1 million fund to pay the legal expenses of people wanting to sue Mother Jones or other members of the 'liberal press.'"

 

[EatinOlives]

lol at the people calling him racist, like you haven't said something that would offend/embarrass someone in the past 15 years. he deserves to come back to wwe, no question about it.

Uh no, I in fact haven't called anyone a "nigger" even behind closed doors.