Slashdot Mirror


Univision To Buy Gawker Media For $135 Million (recode.net)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Recode: Univision has won the auction for Gawker Media. The TV network and digital publisher has agreed to pay $135 million for the bankrupt blog network, according to a person familiar with the deal. Univision's offer will encompass all seven of Gawker Media's sites, including Gawker.com. Ziff Davis and Univision were the only two bidders for Gawker, which filed for bankruptcy after Hulk Hogan and Peter Thiel won a $140 million judgment in a privacy case. Ziff Davis had originally offered $90 million for Gawker Media. Here's a statement from Gawker Media owner Nick Denton: "Gawker Media Group has agreed this evening to sell our business and popular brands to Univision, one of America's largest media companies that is rapidly assembling the leading digital media group for millennial and multicultural audiences. I am pleased that our employees are protected and will continue their work under new ownership -- disentangled from the legal campaign against the company. We could not have picked an acquirer more devoted to vibrant journalism." The deal won't be official for a bit. For starters, a U.S. bankruptcy court judge needs to sign off on the transaction. When it is final, the judgment funds will be set aside while Gawker appeals its court case; eventually the money will go to the side that wins.

138 comments

  1. Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...their 15 daily "Fuck Trump" articles will be in Spanish now?

    1. Re: Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      you mean illegal aliens entering our country. legal immigrants he has no problem with. please don't mix words.

    2. Re: Does this mean... by mangamuscle · · Score: 2

      Unless they are Muslim or come from a war thorn part of the world. Unless Trump flip-flops, again.

    3. Re: Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      legal immigrants he has no problem with

      Depending on their religion.

      I'm trying to think of the last leader of a first-world nation that had a problem with a particular religion, and singled them out for "extreme vetting". Nobody comes to mind.

      http://static4.businessinsider...

    4. Re: Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please, Trump doesn't care about them either way, unless they're cutting his lawn or making his bed. In which case he only cares that they take the pittance he pays without complaint.

    5. Re: Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Carter banned Muslims from entering the country .

    6. Re: Does this mean... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1, Informative

      Nope. The comments included legal Mexican immigrants. And targeting religions, in violation of the Constitution, up to and including illegal acts against US citizens that are "undesirable".
      ,br>Have you not been listening? Or are you just selectively listening to justify your bigotry?

    7. Re: Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not unconstitutional to block immigration based on religion. You have no constitutional rights unless you're a citizen or already in the country.

    8. Re: Does this mean... by haruchai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Carter banned Muslims from entering the country .

      No, he didn't. He banned Iranian nationals for a time, regardless of their religion and explicitly as a pressure tactic because of the hostage crisis.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    9. Re: Does this mean... by ZipK · · Score: 1, Interesting

      you mean illegal aliens entering our country. legal immigrants he has no problem with.

      It's native-born judges of Mexican lineage that he has a problem with.

    10. Re: Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think they were christian and the point is the president has that power.

    11. Re: Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Jesus mows my lawn.

    12. Re: Does this mean... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      I don't think they were christian

      Iran has christians, especially among the Armenian minority in the Northwest. They tend to be urbanized, and disproportionately likely to travel and trade internationally.

    13. Re: Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      yeah like .3% when Muslims are 99.7%. fact is Carter a "liberal democrat" banned immigration for a Muslim population. u cant change it re word it or bend it. it happened.

    14. Re: Does this mean... by rossdee · · Score: 2

      "I don't think they were christian"

      Perhaps they were Baha'is, leaving Iran to avoid persecution.
      BTW the persecution of Baha'is is still happening in Iran

    15. Re: Does this mean... by haruchai · · Score: 3, Informative

      He banned a SPECIFIC country's citizens who were extremely likely to be Muslim. He likely would have done the same if they were extremely likely to be Buddhist, maybe even Xtian.
      Saudi Arabian Muslims - not banned, Iraqi Muslims - not banned, Yemeni Muslims - not banned, Nigerian Muslims - not banned

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    16. Re:Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it means they get to start training their Spanish replacements.

      That said, at least Bumblebee Man will be more entertaining.

    17. Re: Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carter's actions included humanitarian exceptions, so the real problem would be Iranian persecution to the point of barring attempts to leave.

    18. Re: Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like Trump's "No Dicks" policy. You have to actually want to be here, and come here legally.

    19. Re: Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't think Jesus did that sort of thing, except with Mary Magdalene

    20. Re: Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well we at least agree the president has that power.

    21. Re: Does this mean... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1, Troll

      You have no constitutional rights unless you're a citizen or already in the country.

      That's debatable. The US blocked suits about Guantanamo to ensure no court case made it to the Supreme Court to rule on that. And the wording on rights is ambiguous. Some are "citizen". Others are "people". And still others are restrictions on Congress. The third, and possibly the second would apply to foreign non-citizens, while the first wouldn't.

    22. Re: Does this mean... by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope. Carter cancelled visas for those holding a passport of a country we were (almost) at war with. No sanctions were held against people for their religion, ethnicity, or nationality. Iranian-born Muslims holding a Syrian passport were unaffected.

      Do you not remember that Iran invaded US soil and captured Americans and held them hostage in a hostage situation funded by RNC in exchange for illegal arms and funding? It was suspected at the time, and dismissed as a conspiracy theory, but has since been 100% confirmed. Reagan wasn't involved in the initial hostage taking, but suported Iran after that, as a way to weaken Carter before the election. Treason to win the presidency is a Republican staple, since 1972. We still aren't sure there wasn't a treason every election since then. Only two have been proven, and a few more suspected.

    23. Re: Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eat shit and die slow! you and your boss Trump

    24. Re: Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Citations please.]

    25. Re: Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christian Iranian refugees in my country would beg to differ.

      Jesus, are you seriously this dumb or are you just Turkish and trying really hard to forget?

    26. Re: Does this mean... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Just as a starting point. There's more, but I doubt there's any level of evidence that would convince the Loyal Comrades of the Party.

    27. Re:Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now it will be "Chinga a tu madre Trump, hijo de la chingada" or something like that

    28. Re: Does this mean... by dbraden · · Score: 1

      No, our Constitution simply doesn't hold any weight in other countries. It doesn't grant foreigners rights that citizens enjoy, nor does it guarantee those rights to our citizens outside the U.S. For example, you're not going fly into Dubai and successfully invoke your 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment rights to say what you want, when you want, while open-carrying your handgun and guarding your possessions from unreasonable search and seizure when they come for you.

      If our own citizens aren't protected by the Constitution while in Syria, why would you think Syrians are protected by it?

      That's debatable. The US blocked suits about Guantanamo to ensure no court case made it to the Supreme Court to rule on that.

      And rightfully so. They are prisoners of war, not guests in the Hamptons. It should stay out of the civilian court system. There are military courts that are better suited to deal with cases like that, and applying more applicable laws. Such as military rules of engagement, and treaties like the Geneva Convention, etc.

    29. Re: Does this mean... by dbraden · · Score: 1, Informative

      you mean illegal aliens entering our country. legal immigrants he has no problem with.

      It's native-born judges of Mexican lineage that he has a problem with.

      And by that, I assume you mean "native-born judges of Mexican lineage and whom is a member of an anti-white racist orginization, an organization that has taken strong positions against Trump.

      So Trump's beef with Judge Curiel is totally with merit. Curiel shouldn't be anywhere near the case due to the conflict of interest.

    30. Re: Does this mean... by cbraescu1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And rightfully so. They are prisoners of war, not guests in the Hamptons.

      Actually they are *not* prisoners of war, and that's the whole conundrum about them.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    31. Re: Does this mean... by red+crab · · Score: 0

      Wondering which retard modded you up as Informative...

    32. Re: Does this mean... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I don't think they were christian and the point is the president has that power.

      Iranian Christians do exist, now mostly in Arizona and California.

    33. Re: Does this mean... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "No, our Constitution simply doesn't hold any weight in other countries."

      You're forgetting about the Because We Have Nukes clause, which grants the FBI controlling legal status in New Zealand.

    34. Re: Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The constitution only prohibits considering someone's religious beliefs if they are doing politics. Also, no country is obligated to allow people in, and are free to open and close their borders as they wish, and let people in based on what criteria they want. This is the right of a sovereign nation by virtue of its existence. Even if their laws and constitution say otherwise, the strength of a nation's borders is determined entirely by who has the bigger club.

      Also, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) literally grants the president power to deny entry if you would be "detrimental". So yes, he is within the established constitution AND federal law.

      "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

    35. Re:Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's kinda what I thought, but there will by at minimum 30 "Fuck Trump" editorials, which they claim as TRUE, per day instead of the 15.

    36. Re: Does this mean... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      yeah, he only hates half of people's families.
      wonder how the other half feels about that, and how that might make them vote.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    37. Re: Does this mean... by dywolf · · Score: 0
      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    38. Re: Does this mean... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      he pretty much just doesn't like Mexicans, unless he's paying them substandard wages to work for him as visitor workers cheaper than US citizens would.

      http://www.theflama.com/5-quot...

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    39. Re: Does this mean... by jbengt · · Score: 2

      It doesn't grant foreigners rights that citizens enjoy, nor does it guarantee those rights to our citizens outside the U.S.

      Nor does it grant rights to US citizens. It enumerates certain of the unalienable rights that all people have been endowed with by their Creator (notwithstanding that those rights are routinely trampled on by governments of all persuasions) See the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." See also the debate the framers had about adding the 'Bill of Rights' amendments to the constitution.

    40. Re: Does this mean... by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      i have no issue with this.

    41. Re: Does this mean... by Coren22 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Funny, but when I read about Trump's plan, that was exactly what he proposed. He wanted to ban all people coming from Syria. But I guess when you hate someone, you just need to find reasons for your hate, and not actually look at things for yourself.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    42. Re: Does this mean... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      What comments are you reading about? The comments I saw were specifically talking about the crime committed against the illegal immigrants, and that he wanted to build a wall to stop illegal immigration. Where do you get the idea it was against legal immigration? Please provide citations to Trump's exact words calling for immigrants from Mexico being denied entry into the US.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    43. Re: Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are a fucking moron.

    44. Re: Does this mean... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      No Dicks policy? So Trump is getting thrown out?

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    45. Re: Does this mean... by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      and trump said in clear as day wording that he wants to block immigration from countries where terrorism is rampant. big difference from banning all muslims

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    46. Re: Does this mean... by bengoerz · · Score: 1

      hostage situation funded by RNC

      Citations please. It's not in the Wikipedia article.

    47. Re: Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean Jimmy Carter right? He banned Muslims (Iranians) from entering the country from November 1979 and April 1980.

    48. Re: Does this mean... by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "and trump said in clear as day wording that he wants to block immigration from countries where terrorism is rampant. big difference from banning all muslims"

      That's what he's saying *now*. I imagine that flip-floppin', loose-lipped bozo will change his tune again before the election.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      "In a semantic softening of his previous position restricting immigrants or visitors from Muslim-majority countries, Trump said he would “temporarily suspend immigration from some of the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism.”

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    49. Re: Does this mean... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's in the cites. Like I said, anyone who wouldn't believe it, wouldn't believe it with more evidence. There's no level of evidence that would convince the zealot.

    50. Re: Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, but when he opened his big fat mouth, he said MUSLIMS, not SYRIANS. REPEATEDLY. Just like he said MEXICAN illegals, not just illegals. But I guess when you love someone, you will need to justify all their stupidity, and not actually listen to things for yourself.

    51. Re: Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and trump said in clear as day wording that he wants to block immigration from countries where terrorism is rampant. big difference from banning all muslims

      Must be some good ganja, dude.

      In his nicest Bob Dole impersonation, from a written quote:

      Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population.

      Yeah. Source: https://www.google.com/#q=trump+muslim+quote, quoting Newsday. But any number of sources have it. Among MANY others naming Islam and Muslims specifically.

      Next spinmesiter, please.

    52. Re: Does this mean... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Love? I HATE all the candidates. They are ALL horrible!

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    53. Re: Does this mean... by Lost+Race · · Score: 0

      More than that, in recognition of the mentioned inalienable human rights (not granted-to-citizens rights) the Constitution explicitly prohibits certain actions by the US government. Those prohibitions apply to the US government everywhere in the world, with respect to all human beings, not just citizens.

    54. Re:Does this mean... by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Univision has been expanding its presence in English-language media for a while now. Its ownership of The Onion is a notable example. The Gawker purchase is a logical extension. But I wouldn't be shocked if they also use the purchase to make some Gawker-like content available in Spanish, probably on a new site.

    55. Re: Does this mean... by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Funny, but when I read about Trump's plan, that was exactly what he proposed. He wanted to ban all people coming from Syria. But I guess when you hate someone, you just need to find reasons for your hate, and not actually look at things for yourself.

      Does that include not looking at Trump's own website?? How exactly does "total & complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" equate "all people coming from Syria"?
      BTW, Syria has millions of Christians how does banning them protect America from Muslim hate?

      https://www.donaldjtrump.com/p...

      "- DECEMBER 07, 2015 -

      DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION

      (New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

      Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump"

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    56. Re: Does this mean... by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      Troll? Really? Mind-boggling.

    57. Re: Does this mean... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      well yes, because sadly people cant seem to understand what he is saying so he has to spoon feed the media.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    58. Re: Does this mean... by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Oh, I think we understand him just fine.
      Take a good look at the Trump supporters especially the ones who've been showing up at all the raillies and then look at ones who've supported the previous GOP candidates.

      You want a old white billionaire to run for President? Fine - ask Buffett, Bloomberg or even Perot. At least we know they're truly self-made billionaires and not likely to dicker, duck, dance, dive and dodge over releasing their tax returns.
      I'm sure theirs are just as huge, beautiful, complex and interesting as Teh Dahnald's and while it's very hard to pin down the exact worth of a vast diversified fortune, I don't know of any other actual billionaire's whose value fluctuates according to their feelings

      And one man who has seen at least some of those returns, thinks we all should see them, too.

      https://www.bloomberg.com/view...

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    59. Re: Does this mean... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      first of all, i dont support trump. hes not my guy

      secondly yes, i see the trump supporters, the ones NOT being used by the media, the mom and dad and 8 year old kid riding his bike wishing the cops wont bring him home and call his parents bad parents because he was riding his bike off his property The single dad working 2 jobs to care for his children and cant afford more in taxes. I see these people

      now compare them to the people on the other side. yeah, ill take trumps supporters (the real ones, not the handful that get pushed around, snap and than called evil by the retarded ass media) over the occupy wallstreet/BLM crowd that makes up the democrat whiners party

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    60. Re: Does this mean... by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "The single dad working 2 jobs to care for his children and cant afford more in taxes"
      there are plenty people like that all across America and many of them won't vote for Trump.
      As for his remarks on Mexicans, I spent a couple weeks in CA 2 years ago and saw a LOT of Mexicans everywhere - and every fucking one of them was WORKING. I don't know how many, if any, were illegal, but they weren't raping or dealing drugs, they all had jobs.
      The lady and young man who greeted me at the hotel around 11:30 pm - Mexicans
      The large, broad-shouldered man with the calm, deep voice in charge of the crew serving breakfast for thousands at the convention the following morning - Mexican
        All but a handful of the people he was supervising - Mexicans
      More than a few of the staff at the diner-style restaurant across the road from my hotel - Mexicans
      In all the time I spent, the only homeless or panhandlers I saw were either white or black - not a Mexican that I could see.
      I can't say if Mexico is sending their best but they sure as shit aren't sending their laziest.

      "now compare them to the people on the other side. yeah, ill take trumps supporters (the real ones, not the handful that get pushed around, snap and than called evil by the retarded ass media) over the occupy wallstreet/BLM crowd that makes up the democrat whiners party"
      The Occupy Wall St people had it right in calling attention to the biggest criminals in America. Everyone's shitting themselves over the scary man of the wrong color who may kill or rob you but he's more likely to harm someone who looks like him than someone of a different race.
      Meanwhile, a handful of already-very-fucking-wealthy but unbelievably greedy men can make decisons that can & has crashed the economy more than once and you take issue with those who want to prevent that??

      I don't approve of a lot the BLM strategy but the cops need to restrain themselves and this is better than a return to the days when - and this is before the Civil Rights Act - hundreds or thousands of minorities would show up to prevent arrests. Or there can be not one, two or ten but a HUNDRED Rodney King style riots every week. That's not a fight the cops can win, even with the National Guard behind them. And plenty of others who don't support BLM will take advantage of the chaos to loot, pillage & plunder.
      And don't think everyone on the right will support the police unconditionally - conservative think-thanks have been warning about a staggering rise no-knock warrants and increased incidental fatal shootings resulting from these as well as the amount of battlefield equipment that police forces have been accumulating.

      I actually hope Trump wins so that the cretins support him will learn what a colossal mistake they've made. But I'm sure that the Party of Personal Responsibility will quickly find someone else to blame

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    61. Re: Does this mean... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      what? Reagan's own national address consisting of an apology for lying about trading arms for hostages isn't good enough for you mods?

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  2. El Show de Xuxa by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

    Maybe they will bring back "El Show de Xuxa". I know all the little kids miss that.

    1. Re:El Show de Xuxa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many big kids too, Trem de Alegria

      I love Brazil

    2. Re:El Show de Xuxa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that girl was hot back in the day

  3. Today I learned... by wbr1 · · Score: 2

    ....that Hulk Hogan's penis is vibrant....

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:Today I learned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ....that Hulk Hogan's penis is vibrant....

      especially after he's made a racist remark about African-Americans

  4. too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I was hoping Peter Thiel would buy it out of spite...

    1. Re:too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was hoping someone would buy it and put Milo Yianmopoulos in as the Kotaku editor.

      And then make a fortune selling snuff videos of hipsters throwing themselves off the Golden Gate bridge.

    2. Re:too bad by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Honestly, if Thiel wanted to cause the maximum amount of anger, he'd put Milo in charge of Jezebel, not Kotaku.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  5. GOOAAALL! by mekkab · · Score: 1

    lo que una victoria!

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
  6. Watch out TRUMP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Watch out Trump! Soon you may find yourself in Gawker's Crosshairs!

  7. die die die by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

    I'm happy to hear the company is being sold but I really have to wonder about this. I was sure some pretty heavy hitters were financing Gawker for the sake of getting their narratives pushed. Maybe the Gawker name just became too toxic? We'll know if some other media company rises from obscurity to start shitting out the same kind of bias written by the same people.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:die die die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm happy to hear the company is being sold but I really have to wonder about this. I was sure some pretty heavy hitters were financing Gawker for the sake of getting their narratives pushed. Maybe the Gawker name just became too toxic? We'll know if some other media company rises from obscurity to start shitting out the same kind of bias written by the same people.

      Lunatic conspiracy theory turns out to be untrue, more news at 11

    2. Re:die die die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt it. They were more about anything for the clicks (the Hulk Hogan sex tape, outing that media executive), with a side of helping out their friends (Kotaku suddenly decided the Steam curation system was bad when someone used it to make fun of their friend's game).

    3. Re:die die die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet Gawker is one of the most toxic sources of political propaganda ever, not even a conspiracy.

  8. Bring back bullying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Ultimately #GamerGate is reaffirming what we've known to be true for decades: nerds should be constantly shamed and degraded into submission."

    -- Sam Biddle, senior writer, Gawker Media

    OK now let's hear about the big bad man that launched a lawsuit and brought down this horrid organization for clearly crossing the line. It's a freedom of speech issue, amirite? Like how it was OK for them to post Hulk Hogan, but when the same thing happened to Jennifer Lawrence it was wrong.

    Gawker on Hulk: "We love to watch famous people have sex." Gawker on JLaw: "You have got to be fucking kidding me."

    1. Re:Bring back bullying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK now let's hear about the big bad man that launched a lawsuit and brought down this horrid organization for clearly crossing the line.

      You mean for outing him? That line? Because that seems to be why he did it. The Hogan case was just the tool.

  9. I beg to differ by El+Cubano · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We could not have picked an acquirer more devoted to vibrant journalism.

    Really? Univision is one of the reasons I came to understand how blatant the liberal bias in the US media is. For example, there are lots of (legal) immigrants and children of immigrants who believe, now brace yourselves, that people who come to the US illegally are in fact criminals and that the right thing to do is to enforce the law. However, watching Univision's coverage of immigration-related matters, you will never hear anything about those people. All you will hear is how we need amnesty now. Come to think of it, they are really no different than any other major media outlet.

    Vibrant journalism indeed. I once had a great deal of respect for Univision and their news people, but they have certainly proved they are biased. For example, according to Univision hispanic/latino/a Democrat politicians are held in high regard because of how their ethnic background helps them better understand the plight of the common latino/a in this country. However, hispanic/latino/a Republicans are considered sell outs and are demonized. Come to think of it, black politicians suffer the same problem. You can't be ethnic and go against the approved group-think.

    I'll probably get modded into oblivion, but it's the truth.

    1. Re:I beg to differ by guises · · Score: 4, Insightful

      God damn criminals, coming to the US illegally, what the hell were they thinking? We should get rid of all of those people. Also their decedents.

      George Washington = anchor baby

    2. Re:I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      there are lots of (legal) immigrants...

      Sounds like my neighbors. Pretty much all of them. It's a real PITA to come here legally and should be fixed rather than going around the laws. When you do this and it is accepted, there's no pressure to change the laws and makes everyone a criminal.

    3. Re: I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people in the America at the time of George Washington were a colonies of Great Britain and considered Englishman. there were established immigration rules at that time as well. so even though you use sarcasm you are not correct. people didn't just show up here with out going through a legal process.

    4. Re: I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      people didn't just show up here with out going through a legal process.

      The natives who were here before the English might quibble with "legal."

    5. Re: I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      people didn't just show up here with out going through a legal process

      They took everyone who came off the boat. And most of them worked out quite well, thank you very much.

      So are the new immigrants, documented or otherwise. They're filling needed jobs and helping to keep the local economies moving by doing tough, dirty, and low-paying work that most citizens don't want. Storekeepers don't want some to hire some rich kid who'll quit after three weeks because the work isn't what the precious little brat expected. They have businesses to run. The fact that many immigrants have fewer options makes them more desireable. That was true in 1700 and 1845 and 1870 and 1920 and 1980. That's what America is.

    6. Re: I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people in the America at the time of George Washington were a colonies of Great Britain and considered Englishman.

      Minus the slaves. Minus the Native Americans. Minus the remaining Dutch Citizens. Maybe some Swedish. Minus the Catholics too, for that matter.

      there were established immigration rules at that time as well. so even though you use sarcasm you are not correct. people didn't just show up here with out going through a legal process.

      Oh really, what was that process, and how diligently was it followed? How was it the rightful way to do things anyhow?

    7. Re: I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they're a perfect example of what happens when you fail to control immigration....

    8. Re: I beg to differ by onyxruby · · Score: 2

      That's nonsense. Immigrants have always been subject to inspections and requirements to fit societal standards. Storekeepers and others also freely practiced discrimination (Jews, Irish, Germans, Asians, etc.).

      http://www.history.com/news/9-...
      http://www.vox.com/policy-and-...
      http://www.museumoffamilyhisto...
      http://journalofethics.ama-ass...
      http://cis.org/HistoryIdeologi...

      I'm not saying I agree or disagree with either side on this debate. I'm saying that the setting of standards and rejecting immigrants who fail to meet those standards is well established in American history (sometimes with tragic consequences).

    9. Re: I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Plantation act of 1740. If u came to the colonies undocumented or not formally u were considered an illegal alien.

    10. Re: I beg to differ by El+Cubano · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're filling needed jobs and helping to keep the local economies moving by doing tough, dirty, and low-paying work that most citizens don't want.

      This is what I don't get. The problem isn't that citizens won't do the jobs. The problem is that employers don't want to pay what the market demands. Do you realize that the argument you make is the exact same argument used by those support expanding the H1B program? Heck, why even bother? Just tell tech companies to start hiring illegal immigrants because citizens don't want to do the tough, dirty, low paying job of developing software or managing IT systems.

    11. Re: I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read Naturalization Law of 1802. People did not just hop off boats with out being legally identified and it didn't mean you became an instant citizen. Its a shame most people dont understand us history.

    12. Re: I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That +3 insightful post is even worse than what you believe. That same reasoning, "They're filling needed jobs and helping the local economies moving by doing though, dirty work" is the same reasoning many in the south used to defend the ownership of slaves.

    13. Re: I beg to differ by lucm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      people didn't just show up here with out going through a legal process.

      The natives who were here before the English might quibble with "legal."

      Can you define what you mean by "natives"?

      Of course it's a very convenient way to bundle many different people in a same category and paint them as innocent victims of the evil white invaders, although various tribes (with different languages and customs) had been invading and slaughtering each other for generations before. That's like saying that Germans and French and Brits are all "Europeans" as if they hadn't massacred each other since the dark ages.

      White bashing is not courageous, it's not self-righteousness, it's just lame.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    14. Re: I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really that the cruel, oppressive slave drivers demand that you show up on time, well dressed, sober and work. Well. That you do at least two of those , like maybe show up and sober, though not necessarily on time or actually do any work. Talk to people who are trying to hire and you'll realize that a lot of the problem is the creeping,welfare mentality.

    15. Re: I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And imagine how much better off they'd be if they had been able to stop people from moving into their country. Imagine how America would look if the native tribes had been able to build a wall capable of protecting their borders.

    16. Re: I beg to differ by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The problem is that people pay $0.10 more for a McShit burger, and the McShit shareholders won't tolerate paying more than maximises profit, every possible saving is made. That includes not paying a living wage. Immigrants tend to be more desperate than people born into western societies, so are more willing to work three minimum wage jobs and live in a house with 20 other people, at least for a few years until they work their way up.

      Cutting off that supply of labour won't magically make McShit Burger start paying a living wage. It will probably just damage the economy and make everyone worse off, with fewer jobs to go around at all levels. The only solution is to create more living wage jobs, and immigrants help do that.

      H1Bs are a different issue though, as they are supposed to be skilled workers. The solution there seems to be to require companies to pay market rate + 10%, and then market rate again into a training fund for Americans. And make it easier for H1Bs to quit and move to another job, and faster to get permanent residency.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re: I beg to differ by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Democrats in 1860: "If we free the slaves, who'll pick the cotton?"

      Democrats in 2016: "If we enforce immigration and labor laws, who'll pick the tomatos?"

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    18. Re: I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The depressing part is the responses.

      Republicans in 1860: "Slavery is immoral, will we find a way to make do without it."

      Republicans in 2016: "If we give them ID cards, then it won't be quite as illegal, right?"

    19. Re: I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it's the truth. Go emigrate somewhere. I've done it twice. I fucking hate it when other white people break the law in the country I've emigrated to. Makes us look like shit. The problem is most Americans havent even LEFT the country, much less lived in another country.

    20. Re: I beg to differ by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Actually the current Republican response is to only bring in people we need, and by documenting them give them protection of our labor laws. The problem today is unscrupulous employers can underpay illegal immigrants and violate labor and safety regulations and the illegals can't complain. Document them and make the same laws apply to everyone.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    21. Re: I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The amount of unemployed US citizens contrasts with the assumption that foreign labor is needed at all. Especially in the skilled labor market, where many companies are demanding absurdly overblown skillsets on job listings with entry-level wages and then citing the unfilled position as grounds to hire a completely unqualified foreign applicant for even lower wages than the original listing.

      How about we try enforcing the law first, and then changing the law if that condition is unacceptable?

    22. Re: I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The natives who were here before the English might quibble with "legal."

      This is the dumbest line ever conceived. People aren't responsible for the actions of their long-dead ancestors and there are people alive now suffering as the result of illegal immigration and its impact on the economy. One does not make the other OK, the only thing that matters is who exists now.

    23. Re: I beg to differ by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Except that immigrants can choose where they work and chose to come to their new country. Slaves couldn't choose either of those things. That's really not a good comparison.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    24. Re: I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So unskilled workers don't deserve protection, but your precious skilled labor does? Hahaha, no.

    25. Re: I beg to differ by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      Very good. Quite right too.

    26. Re: I beg to differ by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      lead? won't somebody think of the water

    27. Re:I beg to differ by guises · · Score: 1

      Notable: judging from the number of upvotes and downvotes on this one, this (or the parent comment anyway) is apparently the most contentious post I've ever made.

      Weird.

    28. Re:I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should get rid of all of those people. Also their decedents.

      Their dead people?

    29. Re:I beg to differ by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Univision, like the other major Spanish language media sources in the US, has biases. All of the big Spanish language players share the positions you name, because they are also the opinions of the majority of Latinos in the US. I have seen contrary opinions expressed in smaller newspapers and magazines.

      Despite its imperfections, I do find Univision to be a useful counterpoint to what the English language media are saying. They report stories that the English language media are ignoring, and take different positions on the issues.

    30. Re: I beg to differ by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem is the race to the bottom. If some providers in a market are using inexpensive labor, others who want to compete with them also have to use inexpensive labor; otherwise they will lose business to the providers with the cheap labor. There are some cases where the company can use the fact that they are using high priced labor in their marketing, and survive despite having higher prices than their competition. But that will only work on a fraction of the market; McDonald's and Walmart can't adopt that strategy because low prices have always been a key part of their selling proposition.

      If all providers were on an equal playing field, the higher labor costs would not be a problem in most cases. Prices would increase a bit, and people would adjust and move on. There may be a few goods and services that would be impossible to offer, because there is no intersection between the price that the higher labor costs would require and the willingness of customers to buy the good at that price. But it's hard to feel much sympathy for a business where the entire business model depends on exploiting labor.

  10. One Left Wing partisan saves another. by sethstorm · · Score: 0, Troll

    Now we get to hear a slant that's not only left-wing, but also pro-illegal to boot.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  11. You mean illegals. by sethstorm · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's no immigration in illegal alien.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:You mean illegals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      There's no immigration in illegal alien.

      There's also no immigration in a federal judge of Mexican descent born in Indiana. Nor is there immigration in a black president born in Hawaii.

      You can try to excuse Trump's bigotry all you want. The fact is, it's sinking him. The last groups that haven't abandoned him are neo-Nazis and the KKK. Do you wonder why that is?

    2. Re: You mean illegals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh what a load of baloney the guy was born and lives in New York city for heaven's sake.

    3. Re: You mean illegals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:You mean illegals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Earth to dipshits on ./: Immigration is a subject of Nationality. It has NOTHING to do with race.
      The term bigot has nothing to do with nationality.

      The fact that you are all so retarded as to conflate illegal immigration with race, and the need to help every infected invader from other countries just because they broke federal laws is pathetic, and the reason that we have so many illegals in the u.s.

      You want a job at the company I work for? You better be a u.s. citizen with parents that are u.s. citizens. Otherwise I will see to it that you are not hired.
      You want to enter my property for any reason? You will have to speak English clearly, and you and your parents have to be u.s. citizens. Can't prove it, then you are tresspassing.
      You want to perform work/service for me or my property? You and your parents will have to be u.s. citizens and live in the same city I live in.

      If we all did this we would have a positive impact on the endless waves of illegal invaders.
      And for the dipshits on ./, its not racist or xenophobic. Look up the definition of words before you use them dipshits.

  12. What did they get for $135 million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Besides a guarantee of continued harassment from Hulk Hogan's lawyers?

    Just asking.

    1. Re:What did they get for $135 million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasted money, that and since they own Gawker, they are now associated with everything Gawkers and its employees have done. When you buy a house, the termites come with it.

  13. Soros bailing out one of his cronies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fuck Univision and Gawker.

  14. "acquirer more devoted to vibrant journalism" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the duck?

  15. Seven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Univision's offer will encompass all seven of Gawker Media's sites

    Gawker, Gizmodo, Deadpan, Jalopnik, Jezebel, Kotaku, Lifehacker, Fleshbot.

    I count eight.

    Or did Univision not get Fleshbot in the deal

    1. Re:Seven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, answering my own question. Sold – to the editor, Lux Alptraum – in 2012.

      Lux Alptraum. Light Alp Dream. Yup, that's a real name, for sure.

    2. Re:Seven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lux Alptraum. Light Alp Dream. Yup, that's a real name, for sure.

      Oops, Alptraum is Nightmare. My bad. Light Nightmare. Yup, that's a real name, for sure.

  16. vibrant journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahahahaha

  17. Let Gawker die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate Gawker more than Thiel.

  18. Interesting move. by B33rNinj4 · · Score: 1

    I'm not a fan of Gawker as a whole. Hopefully Univision can give them a bit of legitimacy, or at least hotter women.

    1. Re:Interesting move. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I like lifehacker and Jalopnik The rest not so much.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  19. Bye Bye GAWKER by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Glad someone took this anti everything that isn't socialist, hipster crap website down. Click bait was about all they were good for. The employees better learn SPANISH, or they'll be replaced by illegal aliens.

  20. everyone involved is a horrible person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah, outing him as a self-hating hypocrite.

    1. Re:everyone involved is a horrible person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Remember, gays are only a protected culture if they agree with the SJW narrative!

  21. Time to boycott Uni and Gawker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given Univision's horrible political track record, it appears the time is ripe to boycott Univision as well as Gawker...

    So long, guys...

  22. FBI U MAD BRO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -- Univision , one of America's largest media companies that is rapidly assembling the leading digital media group for millennial and multicultural audiences.

    Not Jewish? What will POTUS Bernie Sanders say about this?

    1. Re:FBI U MAD BRO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are Mexican, not Jews.

      Therefore they are just there to herd the Mexican cattle to the Jews. Gawker may help this.

  23. Up Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    El Telenovela Gawker!