Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on July 17, 2015, 09:56:28 pm
-
article about what I'm talking about (http://www.salon.com/2015/07/17/gawker_drags_media_coverage_to_a_new_low_outing_an_executive_just_because_they_can/)
Original Gawker garbage: https://archive.is/EUkg0
TL;DR
Gawker outed Conde Nast CFO as gay because why not? In the process acted as the payload for blackmail.
-
Anyone who thinks that it's journalism to help a blackmailer deserves to be taken down a few notches.
EDIT: I fully concede to scotty's fix :)
-
Anyone who thinks that it's journalism to help a blackmailer deserves to be taken down a few notches.
FTFY
-
"If it's true, publish" is basically the opposite of responsible journalism.
-
The correct phrase is 'publish and be damned', which is referring to relevant stories that can only be verified to a certain level.
Basically, the theory is that it is better to get into trouble for posting semi-verifiable concerns that, for example, the Tax Minister is siphoning funds, than not post those concerns and find out at a later date that he was.
But the phrase 'public interest' plays a very large role in that decision. criminal behaviour is one thing, but sexual infidelity is another. The UK went through this with footballers, and it got such a running joke that British Newspapers have been quietly dialling back the number of 'Football Affair' stories they make prominent.
-
A few updates. Apparently, Gawker took down the piece, but there's a firestorm in the workers union because apparently the decision was made not by the staff but by the higher ups, and they feel they were wronged by that decision: http://politburo.gawker.com/a-statement-from-the-gawker-media-editorial-staff-1718649722
Also, I've been hearing rumours that the whole fiasco was a trap and that Gawker took the bait. But this is very unconfirmed hush hush rumour talk.
-
well after the hulk hogan thing didn't they loose their lawsuit insurance?
man I can only hope they go out of business. One less misery peddler in the world.
-
Gawker's self-righteous hypocrisy about what they consider publishable material is baffling.
Almost makes me wish one of the competing media companies would start doing similar articles on Gawker's staff to see how they liked when their private life was publicly exposed, to allow for a "frank and lively debate" as they like to call it.
-
Milo Yannooossmth made a piece on the "ten worst guys" in Gawker. But I won't llnk it here because I know people hate that guy too. Ain't the media filled with lovable people? :D
-
well, you'd be surprised how quick people can turn around on these things, enemy of my enemy, or the reverse of that.
On that subject I do happen to know of a group of people who have been organizing a dedicated effort to run Gawker specifically out of business for about a year now, but they are a bunch of baby seal clubbers.
-
Milo Yannooossmth made a piece on the "ten worst guys" in Gawker. But I won't llnk it here because I know people hate that guy too. Ain't the media filled with lovable people? :D
Well, yeah, he has done everything that Gawker is being criticized for so...
But, well, Gawker or Breitbart aren't "The Media". They are just small loudmouth segments of "the media". It's not like they are hard to shut out.
-
Yeah, The Media respects boundaries like private voicemail accounts
-
Yeah, The Media respects boundaries like private voicemail accounts
Keep calm and buy the Gaurdian.
-
true, they manage to stay relatively decent through the bold strategy of constantly haemorrhaging money
-
People still take the guardian seriously in 2015?
-
anyone who is in the process of buying ink by the tanker truck is someone you would be well advised to take seriously.
-
People still take the guardian seriously in 2015?
You say that after bringing up Milo, who writes **** like this (NSFW) (http://www.donotlink.com/framed?541927), as somehow a good thing? As opposed to the Gaurdian, which is such a sterling example of stalwart journalism that it wins awards and that David Cameron orders break ins to see what they have on him (Snowden works with the Guardian)? If you are going to make that comparison, you're picking a live vulcano as your hill to die on.
-
I think you misunderstood Luis. He doesn't actually like that Milo guy, he's just following a movement that has declared him "good" for some reason. His comment was more about two idiots (well, one idiot and an organization apparently staffed with idiots) fighting it out.
-
There's a typical response of besieged groups wherein the standards they have towards their "allies" decline the more you feel besieged. Back in the atheist wars, everyone said "Well, PZ Myers might be an asshole, but he's *our* asshole". Well, look at how that turned out. Quite the lesson for me. No, assholes be assholes, even if they are dropping quite the truthbombs that others fail to drop (one could theorize, successfully, that one does need to be an asshole to say the truthbombs when they are unfashionable). I do read him from time to time because in the midst of all the jackassery, he does have content. And in TV, he's actually quite behaved, sharp, well spoken and to the point. It helps that in those venues, he's been the one with the truth on his side.
-
Is it truth, or things you find agreeable?
-
People still take the guardian seriously in 2015?
I mean, a decent number? They're a bit full of themselves at times but they're probably the most credible of the main UK newspapers by a wide margin. The rest mostly break down into morally bankrupt tabloids, godawful Tory broadsheets and Buzzfeed the Independent.
-
The_E, I'm talking about empirical statements of truth. Not opinions. His opinions are generally flamboyant and confrontational, spicy. IOW, assholeish. The best I can say about those is, at least he doesn't hide it.
I mean, a decent number? They're a bit full of themselves at times but they're probably the most credible of the main UK newspapers by a wide margin. The rest mostly break down into morally bankrupt tabloids, godawful Tory broadsheets and Buzzfeed the Independent.
Well, "full of themselves" could be seen as "godawful Labor broadsheets" material, but I see your point. Well, nothing's perfect. We have to take the poison with the goods I guess.
-
I shall paraphrase what I said on Twitter:
Gawker is, always has been, and always will be, trash.
-
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gawker
Noun 1. gawker - a spectator who stares stupidly without intelligent awareness
This is what I always associated the word 'gawker' with...
-
It might be intentional, given what is written in this link.... Gawker is starting to implode. Max Read and Tommy Craggs are quitting Gawker.
https://archive.is/vMAYn
-
I'm really mostly left wondering if I should have known what Gawker was before this whole thing came up.
-
I'm really mostly left wondering if I should have known what Gawker was before this whole thing came up.
I didn't know about it either. All the better that I didn't.
-
they are an online tabloid that has been systematically lowering discourse online for the last 5 years.
so, yeah, you should count it as a badge of honor that you don't know who they are.
-
It might be intentional, given what is written in this link.... Gawker is starting to implode. Max Read and Tommy Craggs are quitting Gawker.
https://archive.is/vMAYn
So if I'm reading that correctly (and I only did a quick skim) they are quitting because they believe that even though they had done something that was a complete dick move, and might even actually be a crime (complicity in blackmail), the management had no right to pull the story.
-
they just had a huge unionization thing happen. this might be related to that.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKX2TQIUMAA7wSs.jpg)
-
they are an online tabloid that has been systematically lowering discourse online for the last 5 years.
so, yeah, you should count it as a badge of honor that you don't know who they are.
:blah: Crap, I tend to read stuff from Deadspin and io9 while having some occasional bouts in Gizmodo and Jalopnik (all of which, unfortunately, are under the Gawker Media banner). Does that make me a horrible person?
-
Not really. It's pretty hard to be on the internet without contributing to morally questionable corporate practices. Just clicking on links gives someone money.
-
Because probably (and I might be wrong here) Cathy Young is a lot more amenable than other journalists with ... ahhh.... greekish names, I'll link to this article which shares a lot of wrongness that Gawker is guilty of. It's a whole culture. Trigger warning: it's an editorial piece against certain behaviors that some of you might not have a problem with.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/19/gawker__the_lefts_selective_outrage_127443.html
-
:blah: Crap, I tend to read stuff from Deadspin and io9 while having some occasional bouts in Gizmodo and Jalopnik (all of which, unfortunately, are under the Gawker Media banner). Does that make me a horrible person?
yes you are bad and you should feel bad, here is a whip (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000C05Z9Y/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_3?pf_rd_p=1944687442&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B001D1V0FE&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0TF3BFT5HRD5WDBABVPQ) so you may now flagellate yourself
-
Because probably (and I might be wrong here) Cathy Young is a lot more amenable than other journalists with ... ahhh.... greekish names, I'll link to this article which shares a lot of wrongness that Gawker is guilty of. It's a whole culture. Trigger warning: it's an editorial piece against certain behaviors that some of you might not have a problem with.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/19/gawker__the_lefts_selective_outrage_127443.html
Frankly you seem to think you're making some kind of awesome point here, as does the author of this piece, but you're both being so selective in your examples as to be laughable. Acting like Gawker hasn't always pissed on everyone on both sides is great, I suppose, if you're really upset by the ideas behind social justice and eager to predict its end.
It's completely untrue, as well.
-
I wasn't making any point, but I did link to a piece that makes one. I find your allusion to selectivity / anedoctalness of the article a solid comment.
I also do think that the larger "Social Justice" ideas are not going to "end" anytime soon, they have been around for hundreds of years, it's not going to be Gawker's demise that is going to kill it. My only gripe with your comment is your assessment that it attacked "both sides". I do wonder at this, because it's absolutely novel to me. Gawker *is* a left-wing publication, regardless of how bad in taste it is (was).