Gawker to shut down next week

[jz78817]

@MrDibble

Yay. Although it’s not what it was when Newitz and Anders helmed it, it’s still my third-favourite corner of the web (after here and Cracked)

Annalee is over at Ars Technica now.

[MrDibble]

@jz78817

Annalee is over at Ars Technica now.

I know, but I hate that site’s layout so don’t enjoy it as much…

[CookingWithGas]

@JohnT

That’s pretty much it - they’re shutting down following the sale of properties to Univision to pay for the Hulk Hogan case.

http://gawker.com/

@PastTense

I’m surprised Univision didn’t sell it. Why didn’t Denton find some backers and buy it?

It’s not as simple as just Hulk Hogan. In fact, Hogan will see little or nothing of his damages. The company will have to pay secured creditors first, then unsecured, and that will leave nearly nothing.

There are no backers willing to take the risk. Here is a good article, but it may be behind a paywall.

[quote]
In a statement Thursday, Denton said Gawker.com’s legal troubles effectively made it toxic for a buyer.

“We have not been able to find a single media company or investor willing also to take on Gawker.com,” he said. “The campaign being mounted against its editorial ethos and former writers has made it too risky. I can understand the caution.”

[quote]

[Cell_Guy]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

Jezebel? Really?

I’ll take the worst that Deadspin has to offer before I ever go to Jezebel. You almost have to check your privilege before you read anything there.

There have been some articles on Jezebel that have made me rethink my POV on a subject. Mostly I go there because it’s one of the best humor sites on the net.

[Larry_Borgia]

If Nick Denton and Peter Thiel were drowning and you could only save one of them, what kind of sandwich would you make?

[Acsenray]

@Larry_Borgia

If Nick Denton and Peter Thiel were drowning and you could only save one of them, what kind of sandwich would you make?

One that took a very long time to make.

[straight_man]

@CookingWithGas

It’s not as simple as just Hulk Hogan. In fact, Hogan will see little or nothing of his damages. The company will have to pay secured creditors first, then unsecured, and that will leave nearly nothing.

Unless bankruptcy works a whole lot differently in the US than in Canada or the ongoing appeal changes things, Hulk Hogan is an unsecured creditor. He’ll get a proportionate share of whatever is left after the secured creditors have been paid, which should still be a big chunk of money.

[astro]

Here’s a fairly thorough take on the rise an fall of Gawker

Did I Kill Gawker?

I liked Gawker because they were fearless and funny, but I sometimes didn’t like them because they had no empathy for anyone if the dirt was juicy enough and would throw even little people around just for clicks. They had a good run but in the end really their arrogance and an angry billionaire did them in.

[seal_cleaner]

I enjoy Jezebel. Deadspin is ok as long as they stick to sports.

[Northern_Piper]

The campaign being mounted against its editorial ethos and former writers has made it too risky. quote]

Gawker had ethics?!?

[Northern_Piper]

The New York Magazine article is interesting. Two points that caught my eye:

The trial was a disaster, not least because of A.J. himself. A deposition recorded in 2013, when it still seemed likely that the suit would end in a settlement, featured a damaging exchange in which a lawyer for the plaintiff pushed A.J. about the lines Gawker would or would not cross, asking: “Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?” “If they were a child,” A.J. says. “Under what age?” the lawyer asks, a dumb question that deserved a more serious answer than A.J.’s flippant response: “Four.”

Actually, that’s not a dumb question from the lawyer at all. It’s exactly the sort of methodical question that we’re supposed to ask in discovery:

• Witness gives a statement about the line they won’t cross, using an undefined term (“child”).

• Lawyer asks witness to define the term: “What age do you mean by ‘child’?”

• Witness gives flippant answer that destroys case: “Four”

And then at trial, when this exchange is entered, the lawyer for the plaintiff is fully entitled to say to the jury: “Their own witness said that publishing a sex tape with a child of four or under is out of bounds. That means in their view, publishing a sex tape of a child over four would be acceptable.”

No wonder they lost, if their own witnesses couldn’t resist the urge to smirk under oath. :rolleyes:

And then there was this one:

Among the most frustrating things about the Hogan lawsuit, as it slowly marched toward trial, was that no one who hadn’t worked for Gawker seemed to have any sympathy for the company. Many people had adopted the line that the post itself, despite having passed with little comment in 2012, was a bridge too far — “revenge porn” of the kind that had ruined the lives of people who weren’t professional wrestlers. But the specifics of the post were ultimately irrelevant; it had become a stand-in for whatever past sin had most offended you. Gawker once unforgivably outed a little-known media executive, or was cruel to me or one of my friends, or was a white-guilt propaganda outlet dedicated to the destruction of gamers; for this, it deserved to suffer. If Hogan was the agent of that suffering, so be it.

Well, yes, if your business model is based on being obnoxious jerks, not respecting anyone’s privacy, and publishing gossip as a social good, you shouldn’t be surprised if no-one likes you, and will try to kick you when you’re down. :rolleyes:

The strange thing is that the author of this piece, who seems to have a good handle on what they were doing, seems surprised by that.

[Acsenray]

I agree with this. Even as a fellow member of the fourth estate who is committed to free speech rights, I can’t work up any sympathy for Gawker on this, and every time I hear Denton talk, my sympathy drops to less than zero.