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!

NR on Gawker: A little bit of everything

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by QYFW, Jun 29, 2017.

  1. QYFW

    QYFW Well-Known Member

    Politics, media, sex. Had no idea there was a related documentary.

    Anyway, thought this would be right up our alley.

    Inside the Delightful Suicide of Gawker
  2. CD Boogie

    CD Boogie Well-Known Member

    I’m a gay guy and to my mind it is simply insulting for different standards to be applied to gay people than are applied to straight people. I don’t see any reason why we should treat it as something shameful to be kept secret so I’ll push back very, very strongly against that.” In other words, any gay person who chooses to be quiet about it runs afoul of Denton’s zeal for proselytizing. All gay people must adhere to Dentonian dogma on this, or be punished. Who made him the pope of the gays?​


    PS. Fucker Gawker and Daulerio. They got their just deserts.
  3. QYFW

    QYFW Well-Known Member

    Some good lines in that column. Fun read.
  4. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

    Disturbing that many of you are so eager to dance on Gawker's grave. Although not surprising that some of you would latch onto a simple-minded column by an apparently simple-minded man.

    To repeat myself from the earlier thread:

  5. QYFW

    QYFW Well-Known Member

    Why is it disturbing?
  6. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

    Because, for the reasons I discussed at length, it raises serious concerns about freedom of speech in America. Gawker likely would have prevailed on appeal--the state-court judge was the most reversed judge in the county--but, unfortunately, ran out of money before it got that far. Even if you think what Gakwer posted was disgusting this should concern you. What happens the next time a billionaire with a grudge tries to put a media company out of business? No guarantee some state-court judge in Podunk will make the right decision in that case either.

    Lots of stuff gets published that I don't agree with, or find reprehensible. If advertisers refuse to advertise, or readers refuse to read, so be it. When the government seeks to prohibit or punish truthful speech about a public figure, however, we should be a little more troubled.
    Big Circus likes this.
  7. Songbird

    Songbird Well-Known Member

    Buzz's incoherent 91-word sentence was better than this, at which point I stopped reading. Escutcheon? Lol.

    Unkind! Gawker saying its mission is to make war with the unkind is like the Queen of England decrying nepotism. Gawker’s very escutcheon was cruelty, obnoxiousness, unkindness. It published stories too nasty and sleazy for tabloids, and wrote them up with sophomoric zeal for vulgarism and profanity. I happily worked at tabloids for many years, but I felt ashamed of myself every time I read Gawker. I can hardly imagine what it must have been like actually to work at such a flatulence farm, a scum ranch, an academy of pus.
  8. QYFW

    QYFW Well-Known Member

    Good ending to that, though.

    I can hardly imagine what it must have been like actually to work at such a flatulence farm, a scum ranch, an academy of pus.
  9. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

    He should know about all of that from working at the National Review, which (based on some of the emails I receive) sells its subscriber lists to the seediest of operators. For example, I got the following a few months ago:

  10. QYFW

    QYFW Well-Known Member

    Well, he should know!
  11. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

  12. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    A judge dismissed the portion of Michael Mann's suit against the National Review a few days ago. They are saying they are going to try to recover millions of dollars of legal fees. I have no idea if they have a chance of that. But it was wrong that that suit wasn't dimissed quickly, let alone that it went on for 9 years.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page