Gawker.com To End Operations Next Week (gawker.com)

After nearly 14 years of operations, Gawker.com will be shutting down next week, the company's outgoing CEO Nick Denton told the staff Thursday. The decision comes days after Univision said it would buy Gawker Media properties -- Gizmodo, Jezebel, Kotaku etc (but not Gawker.com) -- for a sum of $135 million. The publication is currently in the middle of multiple lawsuits, with billionaire Peter Thiel revealing his clandestine legal campaign against the company. In a blog post, Gawker made the announcement. From the story:Nick Denton, the company's outgoing CEO, informed current staffers of the site's fate on Thursday afternoon, just hours before a bankruptcy court in Manhattan will decide whether to approve Univision's bid for Gawker Media's other assets. Staffers will soon be assigned to other editorial roles, either at one of the other six sites or elsewhere within Univision. Near-term plans for Gawker.com's coverage, as well as the site's archives, have not yet been finalized.

Comments

As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Gawker was largely a trash publication and provided little value journalistically. It was largely a place for snobs to act like jerks. They messed up publishing that Hulk Hogan video.

Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal

[tripleevenfall]

Gawker was largely a trash publication and provided little value journalistically. It was largely a place for snobs to act like jerks.

You just described about 95% of "new media"

Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal

[halfstop]

That's true. The media was awful in 2003 when they failed to do their job before we invaded Iraq, it's only gotten worse. It's just wretched right now.

Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal

[Woldscum]

And nothing of value was lost

Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

The takeaway to gawkers demise is that publishing something that is true does not protect you from liability. Much like libel and slander which protect a persons right not to be lied about, people have a right to privacy with things done in the privacy of their bedroom. If gawker had just reported on the existence of the sex tape and that they had verified it's authenticity, that would have been journalism and they would have been protected. The fact that they distributed the actual video without iron clad rights to do so (i.e. signed contract with all those who appear on the video) exposed them to liability by violating Hogan's right to privacy, which everyone has (and which juries tend to protect).

Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal

[tlhIngan]

They messed up publishing that Hulk Hogan video.

No they didn't. They saw Hogan as a lame target - one who does not have a resources to sue them. They have a lot of money on lawyers, so they thought they were immune - just publish away and the well-paid lawyers will keep any lawsuit squashed.

The miscalculation was that someone who they burned earlier had a lot of money and was looking for a case with merit (because bringing forward his own case would've had negative consequences) and thus was willing to fund Hogan to bring the case forward.

(This is not unusual - many entities often provide legal aid in cases they deem important - if you think Thiel acted wrong, what do you think of the ACLD, EFF, EPIC, etc., doing the same thing?)

The big problem was thinking journalists were above the law and as a news organization, they were well above the judicial system and reproach and had complete freedom.

Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal

[DarkOx]

Obama stalled it as long as he could

That just isn't true. Obama from the moment he took office essentially ignored Nouri al-Maliki his executive counter part, who desperately wanted to work the US and have our help. His problem was he could not get a lot of backing for his legislature on the status of forces agreement. Obama knows a thing or two about executive power, there was a lot he could have done before the agreement expired that he/we did not do to complete the training of forces the pacifying of very rebel groups. Obama started bring troops home pretty much the day he took office with little regard for completing the mission. It was his administration and Hillary's state department that set al-Maliki up for failure. The fact is early in the Obama presidency he was not interested in Iraq and had campaigned on leveling. He even took credit for 'getting us out' despite the fact that it was Bush's status of forces agreement that was expiring, at the time it was presented as Obama delivering on a campaign promise, suddenly Bush owned it again when it was revealed to have been premature.

Had al-Maliki been seen as stronger and more successful he might have the political capital at home to go after the conditions we required for the status of forces, namely legal immunity for our troops. We could have worked to make the the case but Obama did not do so.

Its also true that we still could have very much 'told' the Iraqi government, "look this is how it is," yes that would have crossed a line making us an occupying force but none the less we *could* have done it and I think in retrospect perhaps we should have.

So its perfectly fair.

Publishing porn without actor permission

[HBI]

Who'd have thunk that that would ruin you? Not Nick Denton, that's for sure.

Hope he likes the poor life like the rest of us.

Re:Freeze Peach

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the answer to speech you don't like was more speech. Not if you're Peter Thiel. He used his money and power to destroy a website because they called him a homo.

Had nothing to do with free speech. The website published a porno without permission of those in it. The website ignored a judge's order to take it down. The website destroyed itself. Mr. Thiel just helped that along. Think of that the next time you donate to the ACLU to do your bidding.

Re:What happens to Kotaku and Gizmodo?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kotaku is indistinguishable from Gawker.com and buzzfeed.com. Fucking garbage.

Re:Not much of a punishment

[kuzb]

You understand they were sued for something like 150 million right? Gawker has debts, and after all the legal fees and the judgement amount is paid he's going to be lucky if he has enough for a decent lunch. Filing for bankruptcy does not absolve you of debt. It just means that how you pay it all back gets adjudicated by the court. In this case, it's getting paid back by the liquification of his entire company.

Thiel wasn't mad at Gawker for calling him a homo

[rsilvergun]

they were calling him out on a ton of shady business deals he had. Gawker did quite a bit of real journalism and used crap like Hogan's sex tape to pay the bills. That's sort of the trouble with modern journalism. It's tremendously beneficial to have them watching the 1%ers for us but these days it's tough to get that paid for. It doesn't help that we've let Murdoch buy up just about everything out there. Here, go watch this.

Please do not call Gawker Journalism

[sciengin]

Calling what Gawker does, journalism, is like calling that evil monster from a horror flick "innocent girl" just because he is wearing her bloody face over his.

Re:What happens to Kotaku and Gizmodo?

[Mashiki]

They look safe for now, but I actually like Kotaku and Gizmodo. It's probably really shitty to work at these companies, which had nothing to do with leaking pr0n, but who's employees are still affected by it.

They're just raging hypocrites, and claim that anyone who doesn't follow their progressive garbage are sexists. While their authors turn around and try to bully, shame, or attack people who refuse to bow down to their bullshit. Fun reminder it was Sam Biddle of Kotaku that cost them $1m-10m in lost revenue for his "bring back bullying" tweet...during bullying awareness month. And of course after that, they then started whining that the people who cost them that are the persons who are really the fascists.