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.

27 of 138 comments (clear)

  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: 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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

    8. 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
    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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
    12. 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.

    13. 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?
    14. 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
  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.

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

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

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  4. 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."

  5. 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: 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.

    3. 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).

    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Soros bailing out one of his cronies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fuck Univision and Gawker.