• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Jury sides with Hulk Hogan in his sex tape lawsuit against Gawker & awards him $115m

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Euphor!a

Banned
Syriel said:
Reporting on a leak regarding an upcoming title is both newsworthy and ethical, so long as the leak is a genuine leak and not a violation of an NDA signed by the outlet or based on information that was illegally obtained.

There are many things to slam Gawker for. This is not one of them.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks.
 
C

cartographer

Member
Euphor!a said:
No, this is not an answer wtf, you are just tacking on "earlier" to various things. That is not inherently a benefit, I am asking why in this specific instance is it a benefit.
Click to expand...

it is inherently a benefit because accurately informing your readers about news as early as reasonably possible is a basic duty of journalism. That is the point of reading news outlets. If there was no benefit, we could just close news outlets and just read straight PR all the time. But we don't, because readers benefit from journalists that report news is a timely manner.

If you are waiting to report on information solely just to wait, then then you aren't servicing your readers. You are actually doing them a disservice by knowingly withholding news items that you would otherwise report.

If there are other reasons to wait (accuracy, sourcing, fact checking, reasonable completeness etc.), then fine, but just for the sake of sitting on the information? Nah. That's not a compelling enough reason to withhold information from your readers.
 
C

cartographer

Member
Euphor!a said:
So it is a benefit to the consumers to learn about something early because it is the basic duty of journalism... what?
Click to expand...

Sigh. I'm finding your replies disingenuous to this point. There was more in my post, and I rephrased to clarify. I thought it polite to engage you and attempt to answer questions, but there are only so many ways I can go about this without repeating myself even more or repeating the arguments of various other people in this thread who have attempted to explain things to you.

I've presented what I believe is a reasonably complete explanation for you. It is OK if you disagree. But I don't see any benefit to continuing this discussion when this is your third reply in a row that has shown a disinterest in reading my entire post. Just seems like a waste of time for both of us.

Cheers, and have a good evening.
 
E

Euphor!a

Banned
cartographer said:
Sigh. I'm finding your replies disingenuous to this point. There was more in my post, and I rephrased to clarify. I thought it polite to engage you and attempt to answer questions, but there are only so many ways I can go about this without repeating myself even more or repeating the arguments of various other people in this thread who have attempted to explain things to you.

I've presented what I believe is a reasonably complete explanation for you. It is OK if you disagree. But I don't see any benefit to continuing this discussion when this is your third reply in a row that has shown a disinterest in reading my entire post. Just seems like a waste of time for both of us.

Cheers, and have a good evening.
Click to expand...

I read your entire posts, and I reply to what is relevant to the discussion. I am not asking for a greater lesson in journalistic imperative. I am asking what the benefit to consumers was by learning the location for the next Assassin's Creed slightly earlier and your reply was the basic duty of journalism.

Which sure, in general might be true but I'm not really talking about in general.
 
Demoskinos

Demoskinos

Member
How the hell does this guy only have $1500 in the bank being the former editor in chief? I have more money than this guy in the bank and I work at fucking McDonalds right now.
 
F

faceless007

Member
Euphor!a said:
My only objection is that it is cheap "journalism" designed only for hits and you comparing it to people wanting to know how a something is made. Which as I have explained, that isn't what this is. And it doesn't even have to be some long detailed report about intricacies of this or that, sometimes reporting is just reporting and that information is useful to people however concise.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I'm still totally lost and don't think you're doing a good job explaining yourself. You haven't explained why the story wasn't journalism, you just asserted that it isn't. You haven't explained the significant difference between those stories and a longer more detailed report that would be acceptable, you simply asserted that there is such a difference. My argument is that there is no ethical difference (remember, what we're arguing about here is the ethics of printing the stories) between the two because they serve the same audiences, are gathered and sourced using the same methods, and commit no journalistic sins like invasion of privacy.

I'll try and make my position as simple as possible.

Kotaku gets information on day 1 and they know on day 3 that information will be officially released. They decide to leak said information on day 2 so they can make money.

That's the long and short of it. This is not information that was going to be kept out of the public eye. This was not information that benefited anyone if they learned about it on day 3 rather than day 2. But it would benefit Kotaku if that leaked it on day 2. And that is all it benefited. Which is why it is entirely self-serving.
Click to expand...

Well now you've completely changed the game and said that your objection is due to the timing of the story, namely that it was published before the official company announcement -- in other words, you think they should have held off in order to accommodate the schedules of PR departments. I already expressed my contempt for that position as politely as I can, I think.

I don't know why you keep hinging your argument to the idea of "benefits." Most journalism doesn't tangibly benefit anybody directly. Do you work in the industry? If you don't, then even a hard-hitting story like a company refusing to pay fair wages or engaging in discriminatory hiring practices or strong-arming a developer in order to buy them when they're nearly bankrupt -- all of which, I hope you would agree, would absolutely be newsworthy stories -- don't affect you or me either. I certainly don't benefit from the publication of those stories. But I recognize the inherent news value in them. Similarly while leaked pre-production and concept work don't rise to the same level of scandal, they're still inherently interesting inside baseball for exactly the same reason scripting and casting and development rumors are interesting to movie and TV industry watchers.

You asserted that this is somehow different but I simply don't see any difference. Company makes thing and would prefer to officially announce all the details of its production themselves -> Journalists get the scoop and publish first. This is a daily occurrence in Hollywood (just yesterday the rumor mills were swirling about who would play young Lando in the young Han Solo Star Wars spinoff) and nobody really benefits from reading that news, but it also doesn't actually harm anyone and so I don't understand the argument that it shouldn't be printed. If the extent of your argument is that "it would have been announced by the company later anyway," then you're saying that journalists should act in accordance with the whims of PR departments -- which is simply not a job requirement for any real journalist.
 
E

Euphor!a

Banned
faceless007 said:
Sorry, I'm still totally lost and don't think you're doing a good job explaining yourself. You haven't explained why the story wasn't journalism, you just asserted that it isn't. You haven't explained the significant difference between those stories and a longer more detailed report that would be acceptable, you simply asserted that there is such a difference. My argument is that there is no ethical difference (remember, what we're arguing about here is the ethics of printing the stories) between the two because they serve the same audiences, are gathered and sourced using the same methods, and commit no journalistic sins like invasion of privacy.



Well now you've completely changed the game and said that your objection is due to the timing of the story, namely that it was published before the official company announcement -- in other words, you think they should have held off in order to accommodate the schedules of PR departments. I already expressed my contempt for that position as politely as I can, I think.

I don't know why you keep hinging your argument to the idea of "benefits." Most journalism doesn't tangibly benefit anybody directly. Do you work in the industry? If you don't, then even a hard-hitting story like a company refusing to pay fair wages or engaging in discriminatory hiring practices or strong-arming a developer in order to buy them when they're nearly bankrupt -- all of which, I hope you would agree, would absolutely be newsworthy stories -- don't affect you or me either. I certainly don't benefit from the publication of those stories. But I recognize the inherent news value in them. Similarly while leaked pre-production and concept work don't rise to the same level of scandal, they're still inherently interesting inside baseball for exactly the same reason scripting and casting and development rumors are interesting to movie and TV industry watchers.

You asserted that this is somehow different but I simply don't see any difference. Company makes thing and would prefer to officially announce all the details of its production themselves -> Journalists get the scoop and publish first. This is a daily occurrence in Hollywood (just yesterday the rumor mills were swirling about who would play young Lando in the young Han Solo Star Wars spinoff) and nobody really benefits from reading that news, but it also doesn't actually harm anyone and so I don't understand the argument that it shouldn't be printed. If the extent of your argument is that "it would have been announced by the company later anyway," then you're saying that journalists should act in accordance with the whims of PR departments -- which is simply not a job requirement for any real journalist.
Click to expand...

I can't break my opinion down any simpler than I have already in this topic. So if you can't grasp it yet I can't help you.

You can disagree, that's fine. I mean, I think you're wrong and that's fine too.
 
A

Aselith

Member
Euphor!a said:
I read your entire posts, and I reply to what is relevant to the discussion. I am not asking for a greater lesson in journalistic imperative. I am asking what the benefit to consumers was by learning the location for the next Assassin's Creed slightly earlier and your reply was the basic duty of journalism.

Which sure, in general might be true but I'm not really talking about in general.
Click to expand...

It doesn't need to be beneficial. You report stories that would be of public interest not necessarily only things that would make life better for them.

People are certainly interested in the next AC setting so reporting it is of public interest.
 
E

Euphor!a

Banned
Aselith said:
It doesn't need to be beneficial. You report stories that would be of public interest not necessarily only things that would make life better for them.

People are certainly interested in the next AC setting so reporting it is of public interest.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks.
 
O

orthodoxy1095

Banned
20cent

20cent

Banned
EightBitNate said:
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.
Click to expand...

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1263087

I am very confused now.
 
P

PHOENIXZERO

Member
D4Danger said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not a private video, a video record without his knowledge or consent that was being used by someone who got a hold of it to blackmail him and IIRC Gawker got it from the blackmailer.
 
P

Patryn

Member
It looks like Hogan and Thiel will have successfully killed off Gawker.

First, Gawker posted this article:

Recode’s Peter Kafka reported yesterday that Univision’s final and successful offer shall “encompass all seven of Gawker Media’s sites, including Gawker.com,” but following his report, Gawker.com staffers were told that Univision has not yet decided whether the company will take Gawker Media’s namesake website under its wing. Both Lloyd Grove of The Daily Beast and Sydney Ember of the New York Times later noted that the future of Gawker.com remains an open question.

While Gawker.com was included in Univision’s winning bid, the proposed acquisition agreement gives Univision the option to transfer Gawker.com back to the bankrupt Gawker Media LLC prior to the deal’s closing in September. Alternatively, Univision could choose to acquire Gawker.com’s assets but decide not to operate it.
Click to expand...

Now we have the following Tweet:

Sydney Ember said:
Per a source, Univision does "not intend to keep operating http://Gawker.com ."
Click to expand...

I'm curious if this is related to Hogan seizing on AJ Daulerio's indemnification clause, which would mean that Univision would be on the hook for a portion of the judgment if it took on Gawker. By declining to take the site they avoid that.

In addition to the baggage with the name, of course.

Please note that this only applies to Gawker.com and not the rest of the Gawker sites. So Kotaku, Jezebel, Deadspin, Jalopnik, Gizmodo, Lifehacker will continue on under Univision management.
 
T

twinturbo2

butthurt Heat fan
Patryn said:
It looks like Hogan and Thiel will have successfully killed off Gawker.

First, Gawker posted this article:



Now we have the following Tweet:



I'm curious if this is related to Hogan seizing on AJ Daulerio's indemnification clause, which would mean that Univision would be on the hook for a portion of the judgment if it took on Gawker. By declining to take the site they avoid that.

In addition to the baggage with the name, of course.

Please note that this only applies to Gawker.com and not the rest of the Gawker sites. So Kotaku, Jezebel, Deadspin, Jalopnik, Gizmodo, Lifehacker will continue on under Univision management.
Click to expand...
This sets a really awful precedent. Donald Trump has issues with the NY Times coverage of him, he's probably looking at what happened here and getting ideas...
 
N

Ninja Scooter

Member
twinturbo2 said:
You sure? Trump's daughter is threatening news outlets already.

http://www.poynter.org/2016/melania-trump-threatens-to-sue-news-outlets/427188/
Click to expand...

1) Melania is his wife, not his daughter

2) Simply making threats of legal action is not an example of any kind of precedent following this Hogan case. That shit was happening before the Hogan/Gawker case and will happen after. When a news organization is punished financially for doing nothing wrong, then you can bring up precedent, not using a bunch of chatter and hypotheticals. Gawker and it's defenders trying to use this as some kind of scare tactic is weak AF.
 
T

Thorgal

Member
Next time on hulkamania 2016 edition.

HH :I WANT YOUR CLOTHES, YOUR BOOTS AND YOUR MOTORCYCLE NEXT!!


OMG HE KILLED HIM! GOD AS MY WITNESS, HE BROKE HIM IN HALF!
 
M

Mask

Member
giphy.gif
 
T

TheYanger

Member
SenorArdilla said:
Yeah. There was a reason Kotaku was a banned site on GAF until recently.
Click to expand...

Because it used to be a shitty site, that was a long time ago though. While they've still got worthless clickbait stories a lot of the time, it also has legitimate reporting and news and ahs for a few years. It used to just be all clickbait trash is why.
 
T

twozerotwo

Member
TheYanger said:
Because it used to be a shitty site, that was a long time ago though. While they've still got worthless clickbait stories a lot of the time, it also has legitimate reporting and news and ahs for a few years. It used to just be all clickbait trash is why.
Click to expand...

Kotaku has broken legit stories. Pretty big ones too.....those press sneak fucks....

Doesn't outweigh the bad they spew out, though.
 
H

Hycran

Banned
NYCmetsfan said:
I can't wait for the appeal when the courts overturn all this nonsense
Click to expand...

Nothing nonsense about it. Appeals are only for errors in law or overriding errors in the original judges appreciation of the facts and evidence. Neither seem to be present in the case. He quite clearly violated someone's reasonable expectation of privacy and is feeling the burn appropriately.

Judges do have the authority to stay execution of a judgment while an appeal may be ongoing. The fact that it hasn't occurred here is also telling.

Not sure why you're on the defence force, but feel free to stop
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Jury awards $25M more to Hulk Hogan
3 4 5 6 7
325
44K
QuantumZebra replied
Netflix documentary considers the dangerous ramifications of Bollea v. Gawker for the
2 3 4 5
228
29K
keenerz replied
  • Locked
The Gawker saga is over: Settled with Hulk Hogan and other litigants for $32 Million
2
79
9K
Producer replied
  • Locked
Court ruling gives Hulk Hogan indemnity rights of former Gawker editor
0
1K
Dalek replied
  • Locked
Gawker Media Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
2
607
Trojita replied
Top Bottom