1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Gawker.com go bye-bye

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by wicked, Aug 18, 2016.

  1. CD Boogie

    CD Boogie Well-Known Member

    Sometimes the ends justify the means, especially when i
    Emotion has a place in every legal case. Saying emotion should be suppressed is like saying journalists should be objective. Nice in theory, but bubkis in practice. To quote the great Bruce Hornsby, "That's just the way it is, somethings will never change."
  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I didn't say that emotion "should be suppressed." Or anything like that.

    I did suggest that civil cases that touch on free press issues (what this was) should not hinge on whether a jury thinks the defendant is an asshole or if he said something in a deposition that they (in their subjective judgment) may have found offensive.

    That may have been the reality in this case. Again, no one is arguing that happened. But that should have had no place in it. We don't regulate speech or publication based on mob rule: "Hey that guy is a dick. Let's shut down his site!" That kind of emotion should have never entered into an action that could shut down a site / publication and award what were ridiculous financial rewards.

    I also disagree with the earlier notion that "rights come with responsibilities." First of all, who decides what the responsibilities are? There is no universal agreement about anything like that. Second of all, what you created with that idea are duties, not rights.
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2016
  3. TyWebb

    TyWebb Well-Known Member

    I have to ask, if you aren't interested in the above, what are you even doing on this site?

    Also, steer clear of the politics thread.
    dixiehack likes this.
  4. typefitter

    typefitter Well-Known Member

    Ragu, it's ridiculous to think that rights don't come with responsibilities. That's basic civics. A functioning society and democracy relies on people not being reckless in the name of freedom. You can have a gun, but you can't randomly shoot people with it. You can have free speech, but you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. That line between what is and isn't acceptable changes over time, but to argue that it doesn't or shouldn't exist is just wrong.
    FileNotFound likes this.
  5. GBNF

    GBNF Active Member

    I just don't understand how you can defend freedom of the press and/or the pursuit of journalism - one of the pillars of which being, hold truth to power - and defend Peter Thiel.
  6. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    And I don't understand how posting an unauthorized video of Hulk Hogan's junk is journalism.

    Just out of curiosity, if that isn't the line for what should land an outlet in a heap of trouble, what the hell is the line then?
  7. CD Boogie

    CD Boogie Well-Known Member

    Is Gawker journalism? I think they abandoned the tenets of journalism -- Daulerio in particular -- when they started burning sources like Jenn Sterger and made no apologies about it. Or printing the rumors about ESPN employees who were supposedly having affairs because Napoleon coke head Daulerio got pissed bc ESPN denied a story that the NY Post eventually broke about Steve Phillips. Are Peter Thiel's actions really the slippery slope everyone is lamenting? Doubtful. In the meantime, fuck Gawker. They gave up the right to have any pretense of being journalists. You don't get to play both side of the fence and then cry wolf when your shit goes sideways. Well, you can, but a lot of people won't give a shit to hear it.
  8. wicked

    wicked Well-Known Member

    The law can be flawed and the "journalism" outlet can be responsible for its demise. They're not mutually exclusive.
    FileNotFound likes this.
  9. GBNF

    GBNF Active Member

    A heap of trouble is a lot different than what happened. Far loftier organizations have published far worse and haven't been demolished by a billionaire.
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    What you are describing are limits on a right. Not responsibilities. That isn't just a semantic distinction. Those limits, when they have been created along the way, have always been attempts to address things that are a clear and present safety danger to others when a right is exercised. Because rights are supposed to exist as long as your exercise of them doesn't infringe on a human right of someone else.

    In this case? Gawker's publication of a video (or any of the words or ideas that pissed people off -- they basically paid for publishing that Peter Thiel is gay) was not a safety or life-type danger to anyone. If you are going to try to twist a limit on the right to a free press into some duty that you need to satisfy in order to have that right, you may as well not even have the right. You draw a limit at Gawker's shittiness. And sure, lots of people emotionally agree, because Gawker were scumbags. But put together a mob and that limit on the right can be set anywhere with ANY "responsibility" attached to it. Rights are rights. They don't come with duties.
  11. GBNF

    GBNF Active Member

    Yes, as evidenced by the pissing on its grave. And not everything that a publication does is always journalism - cat pictures? TMZ? etc. - but if the central tenet of the publication is to speak truth to power, in any form, I don't think it should be extinguished.
  12. CD Boogie

    CD Boogie Well-Known Member

    If you can sift through the excrement of Gawker and excise a tenet as tiffany as "speaking truth to power," then you're a professional spelunker.
    FileNotFound likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page