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. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Of course it is journalism. It may be journalism that you don't like. Or they may use methods you don't like. Or they may focus on things you don't personally find valuable. But of course it is journalism.
  2. CD Boogie

    CD Boogie Well-Known Member

    Not anymore it's not. Maybe they can re-brand as Wanker.
  3. GBNF

    GBNF Active Member

    Have you ever read Greg Howard? He's brilliant, and I only know of him because of his strong writing on Deadspin.
  4. CD Boogie

    CD Boogie Well-Known Member

    hahaha, he is a race-baiting twat. Thanks for stopping by, Greg.
  5. justgladtobehere

    justgladtobehere Well-Known Member

    Where does the Bill of Rights mention the tenets of journalism? The industry's self professed standards don't trump the right to free speech or the freedom of the press.
  6. CD Boogie

    CD Boogie Well-Known Member

    where does freedom of the press give someone the right to air a person's sex tape without their permission? Listen, we can argue the merits of the case, but in this instance I basically don't care. The ends justify the means for me when it comes to the demise of Gawker. Journalism and transparency aren't the worse for their demise. Tom Scocca and all the other half-wit writers who made their careers lede-humping the New York Times will still have plenty of opps to pilfer other gumshoe reporters in order to share their snarky hot takes. And hopefully he'll eventually get sued into bankruptcy like Denton and Daulerio.
  7. justgladtobehere

    justgladtobehere Well-Known Member

    You need something more solid than what you feel or what was taught in an ethics in journalism class to deny somebody's First Amendment rights. The freedom of speech and press is the default. You have to articulate a coherent and defensible reason to abridge that right.
  8. CD Boogie

    CD Boogie Well-Known Member

    I can appreciate all that, but as I said, in this instance I simply don't care about the justice of Gawker's comeuppance.
  9. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

    Setting aside the fact you're patently incorrect about the whole fire-in-a-crowded-theater thing, you are of course right (as I explained earlier) that some speech is not protected. But please explain where you're drawing the line. Here, we have: 1) truthful speech; 2) about a public figure; and 3) about a topic that figure had made a matter of public consumption. Does mere nudity bring outside the ambit of protected speech? Penetration? What say you Judge?

    Of course there can still be consequences to those that chose to irresponsibly exercise their free speech rights. Advertisers can reject them; readers can shun. But that is different than the government--by permitting a legal claim--squelching those rights. Nazis marching in Skokie is surely bothersome--I know it definitely disturbs me--but it is no doubt protected by the First Amendment. Why should Gawker's speech about Hogan--which offended, at most, a single person--be treated differently?
  10. GBNF

    GBNF Active Member

    You know nothing about race if you call him that. And I'm not him, but I respect him.
  11. CD Boogie

    CD Boogie Well-Known Member

    What makes you an expert on race? I assume you're of a race and so am I. Follow his dipshit tweets for an hour and see if he can keep from saying some slag about white people. He's a token at the NYT and like the pussy he is -- the hospital room bs he pulled with Whitlock a perfect example -- he has reigned in his flip race remarks since getting a gig at the times. He's a clown and will be perfectly vanilla in his post-gawker career.
  12. dirtybird

    dirtybird Well-Known Member

    In a world where so much awful shit is written and disseminated, it's kind of impressive that this site is the one that has to go by any means. It's not that this speech is close to the most problematic, it's that this outlet has the gall to not only be prurient, snarky and egotistical, but also to be considered important in some small circles as well.

    If TMZ or the national enquirer outs Thiel, no one cares (hell, not many folks really cared when he was outed). But the point was Gawker was deeply annoying to many, and thus the how in this case doesn't really matter.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page