[TwoPhonesOneKid]

Gawker still acted more mature in terms of the defamatory content than any given social network. This is as clear a case of revenge-murder as you can find. I just want to know who convinced Hulk Hogan anyone cares about him who doesn't already love him. As far as I know he's still the mustache guy of unknown import who was in that funny nanny movie in the nineties I saw at age four. who cares if he swings?

This was obviously about a man's insecurity leveraging the courts to destroy a publicly-valuable business beyond any reasonable conception of justice. Somehow the new york times was never held to the same standard when they published blatant lies and enabled the invasion of iraq and a million murdered.

[epistasis]

Here is a very brief excerpt from a lot of shocking testimony from Gawker's editor; it was Gawker's own self-destructive behavior that destroyed them. Without testimony like this they would still be operating:

> “Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?” asked the lawyer, Douglas E. Mirell.

> “If they were a child,” Mr. Daulerio replied.

> “Under what age?” the lawyer pressed.

> “Four.”

https://archive.is/2016.03.10-033848/http://www.nytimes.com/...

[janderson215]

>> publicly-valuable business

“Valuable” is doing a lot of work here. This is a tabloid you’re talking about. This is not an institution like NYT or WaPo.

[jrmg]

It was more than just Gawker, it was a whole collection of blogs that I’d say were indeed ‘valuable’. The whole story is too much to convey in a post here, but Wikipedia has good (or, at least, comprehensive) articles about it.*

I’m what TwoPhonesOneKid calls a ‘centrist idiot’ in their peer comment (hey, look, I’m treating them with decorum!), and I don’t think it was more valuable than the NYT, but Gawker Media was a blog staple with a wide reach, and those blogs did real journalism in a wide range of fields in addition to click bait. Some of them arguably recovered under new ownership, but many did not.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker_Media, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker

[TwoPhonesOneKid]

Gawker was a far more valuable institution than both of the above. I'm not sure how you could claim otherwise: both papers just regurgitate ap headlines with misanthropic assholes managing the editing. Gawker at least managed to break news and contribute to discourse beyond the ivy-league toadies that contribute nothing substantial beyond dogmatic reverwnce for broken institutions that were wildly out of date a hundred years ago.

Centrist idiots blathering about institutional integrity and decorum destroyed this country. I refuse to let them gain power again. I far prefer gossip rags to imperial stooges: at least they're honest about their dishonesty. They also never stooped to the level of the new york times endorsing an obviously illegal invasion.

Granted, both are equally willing to cater towards the american demand for blood rather than justice. But at least I can blame the poeple actually at the capitol for january sixth. Who the hell can I blame for the mass-complacency and dogmatism of college-educated liberals aside from the very same ignorant mass? Until a better scapegoat arrives, the editorial boards of ivy-league-catering newspapers will have to do.

Why do people not read manufacturing consent? It's the only text american adults should be reading. Everything else doesn't matter.