Gawker Files for Bankruptcy

[schild]

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=gawker+bankruptcy&tbm=nws

Not sure how it quantifies its assets at $50M+ but heyyyyyyy

get the fuck outta here gawker

[Malakili]

and nothing of value was lost.

[Paelos]

I used to like Deadspin before it became mostly soccer talk and promoted ads.

[HaemishM]

I still like Deadspin. Heavy on the ads, though.

[Bunk]

I wondered how they were going to respond to Hogan's judgment.

Good riddance.

[Sky]

What'cha gonna dooooo, brother?

[WayAbvPar]

Daulerio drove Gawker into the ground? Stop, the room is spinning.

[Khaldun]

I kind of like io9 and hope that it reconstitutes somewhere else under some other label, and Peter Thiel is a major asshole, but...yeah. Gawker could occasionally publish an interesting piece here and there but it was mostly an unending garbage fire of adolescents who were told they could do as they pleased. The number of times that Gawker and Jezebel have run pieces that were either wildly inaccurate--the kind of inaccuracy that literally a single phone call or fifteen minutes with a search engine can avoid--or that were hideously unethical are as numerous as grains of sand on the beach. The thing in the end that was so aggravating was that they believed they were fighting the power rather than just harvesting clicks, or at least they talked that talk--and then like a lot of people in their situation seemed actually shocked when the powerful turned out to be, well, powerful and not particularly welcoming of being hassled by a bunch of creepy gossipmongers.

[K9]

I'm also in the 'I like Deadspin' camp

io9 has the odd gem. I wouldn't notice the rest if they vanished though.

[Soulflame]

It's somewhat appalling because a billionaire sued a company out of existence because he was mad at a guy who worked there.

[Torinak]

It's somewhat appalling because a billionaire sued a company out of existence because he was mad at a guy who worked there.

This.

It's not bad that Gawker got sued and that they lost, based on what coverage I've seen of the legal issues. I'm not at all comfortable with the very rich being able to use their money to crush journalists or media outlets. There are too many rich assholes out there who would love to suppress critical or contrarian voices, and the Gawker case may have been the "open season" call.

[Soulflame]

I agree with Torinak's points as well.

[Threash]

It's a lot less appalling when the lawsuit happens to be absolutely legit and not some "I'm going to sue a dry cleaner for 65 million because they lost my pants" frivolous bs.

[Evildrider]

You can only serve shit for so long before you have to eat it yourself.  

[Margalis]

It's somewhat appalling because a billionaire sued a company out of existence because he was mad at a guy who worked there.

But they committed an offense that they completely deserved to be sued for. In fact they committed dozens of such offenses.

Why does it matter that he's a billionaire? Should rich people not be allowed to use the legal system?

To me this is like saying "a billionaire got me thrown in jail because he disliked me" while leaving out the fact that you killed his family in a DUI wreck. On some level I understand how maybe it's a bit scary that people with money have more sway over the legal system and can use that to influence media, but in this case it doesn't seem like the legal system is being abused.

If anything the abuse is the fact that all the other people who had cause to sue did not because Gawker had deeper pockets. Ideally we wouldn't have to wait for a rich guy to do it.

There are too many rich assholes out there who would love to suppress critical or contrarian voices, and the Gawker case may have been the "open season" call.

If those critical voices are in the business of ruining other people's lives for clicks and can be found guilty in a court of law then I see no downside to them being crushed.

[Soln]

I agree with Marg.  It's capitalism. 

[TheWalrus]

Not everywhere is loser pays, as most cases should be.

[Khaldun]

Basically, I kind of agree too. For a long time, Gawker published stuff that had no business being published in any sense of public interest. They also published some good essays and every once in a blue moon, a genuine piece of investigation. But if you publish a lot of stuff that dances around and over the edge of libel, as well as stuff that's just plain grossly incompetent in terms of factual accuracy, don't be too surprised when somebody sues and doesn't care that once in every one hundred stories you do a good job. When the somebody isn't just getting a law firm to sue for the prospect of profits but has deep enough pockets to keep going and going and has enough hatred to bankroll other suits, well...

The best defense against that is to not publish semi-libelous bullshit and to not get a reputation for being comically wrong on the facts half the time. And also to not get a reputation for being over-the-top self-righteous while denying absolutely that you have any ethical obligations yourself. There is no society on earth that could protect you from getting enemies under those circumstances, and in any society where some enemies have more resources than others, even the most iron-clad version of the First Amendment could not guarantee you absolute protection from any consequences.

The big media companies know this already. It's not just that they're controlled by corporate suits that makes them cautious--they know it's actually important to get it right and do a good job as a baseline defense against any enemies you might make in the course of doing basically good work. Nick Denton and Gawker's writers and editors laughed at that kind of due diligence.

[Paelos]

Turns out if you pretend to be a news site and throw out all the rules of journalism you get sued and take it up the tailpipe. I'm not sorry for any of them. I'm more sorry at the state of news reporting

[Soulflame]

Hogan's lawsuit had merit, but Thiel didn't fund it out of the goodness of his heart, he did so to get back at Denton.

Watching a billionaire fund lawsuits to destroy someone else's company isn't a good idea.  It's a recipe for less coverage of billionaires, if nothing else.

[angry.bob]

Gawker was behind some of the most egregious social justice initiatives, intentionally turning Que Zinn's fucking for reviews and more fucking into the shitpile that continues to be GamerGate. Gawker made GamerGate to push an agenda and get clicks. ANd that's just one of their many "campaigns".

Fuck them, I'm glad they're dead or at least dying, and I'm pleased as fucking punch that many of the people behind social justice being shoved into gaming are now finding themselves unemployable and begging for money or work.

[Khaldun]

Or maybe it's a recipe for actually covering billionaires intelligently, mindful in part that they have a billion dollars and so you'd better get your facts right and you'd better not be reporting on trivialities, like "That billionaire is gay! He totally sucks cock!".

Remember the scene in All the President's Men where Ben Bradlee says, more or less, that if you're taking on the President of the United States, don't fuck up? Woodward and Bernstein, especially back then, might not have had much more moral compass than Hamilton Nolan or any other dickface "reporter" at Gawker, but at the 70s Washington Post there were still quite a few grown-ups in the room to remind the two of them that they'd better not fuck up because the stakes were high and power was a real thing. At Gawker, there weren't any grown-ups, so not only was there no one reminding the li'l Minions that that people like Thiel were genuinely powerful, not just I-studied-hegemony-in-college powerful, nobody was telling them "If you're gonna tweak power, make it worth it."

There also wasn't anybody to tell the Li'l Minions that if you're going to get on your high horse roughly 8.5 times a week, you'd better be closer to Gandhi than Ramsay Bolton in your own ethics.

[Torinak]

Or maybe it's a recipe for actually covering billionaires intelligently, mindful in part that they have a billion dollars and so you'd better get your facts right and you'd better not be reporting on trivialities, like "That billionaire is gay! He totally sucks cock!".

Remember the scene in All the President's Men where Ben Bradlee says, more or less, that if you're taking on the President of the United States, don't fuck up? Woodward and Bernstein, especially back then, might not have had much more moral compass than Hamilton Nolan or any other dickface "reporter" at Gawker, but at the 70s Washington Post there were still quite a few grown-ups in the room to remind the two of them that they'd better not fuck up because the stakes were high and power was a real thing. At Gawker, there weren't any grown-ups, so not only was there no one reminding the li'l Minions that that people like Thiel were genuinely powerful, not just I-studied-hegemony-in-college powerful, nobody was telling them "If you're gonna tweak power, make it worth it."

There also wasn't anybody to tell the Li'l Minions that if you're going to get on your high horse roughly 8.5 times a week, you'd better be closer to Gandhi than Ramsay Bolton in your own ethics.

I'd be OK with it if the billionaire had wiped out Gawker in a lawsuit filed about him directly. IMO, it's not the same to use an unrelated lawsuit as a mechanism to punish something you don't like. Moreso if in the process the billionaire may have influenced the unrelated lawsuit in a way to hurt the defendant more potentially at the expense of the plaintiff (i.e., the tweaking of the claims against Gawker to ensure that Gawker's insurance wouldn't cover it, even if a settlement would be more likely if the insurance is involved).

It feels like an end-run around libel laws. The end result is that protected speech is no longer protected if it's about someone rich.

[MahrinSkel]

I'd be OK with it if the billionaire had wiped out Gawker in a lawsuit filed about him directly. IMO, it's not the same to use an unrelated lawsuit as a mechanism to punish something you don't like. Moreso if in the process the billionaire may have influenced the unrelated lawsuit in a way to hurt the defendant more potentially at the expense of the plaintiff (i.e., the tweaking of the claims against Gawker to ensure that Gawker's insurance wouldn't cover it, even if a settlement would be more likely if the insurance is involved).

It feels like an end-run around libel laws. The end result is that protected speech is no longer protected if it's about someone rich.

So Gawker ruined the reputation of someone who couldn't afford lawyers, and it is like breaking the rules or something that someone else they pissed off decided to bankroll Hogan? I mean, everybody knows that if you go after somebody smaller than you are, the fair thing is for everyone else to stay out of it, right? Honor among bullies, right?

In a pissing contest between Denton and Thiel, I'm strictly in it for the popcorn. There's no moral high ground to be had.

--Dave

[Riggswolfe]

I don't think Torinak's point is that it is bad Gawker got sued out of existence so much as it is worrying that one man had the power to do it. This time it was a deserving target. But what about next time?

[angry.bob]

I don't think Torinak's point is that it is bad Gawker got sued out of existence so much as it is worrying that one man had the power to do it. This time it was a deserving target. But what about next time?

I can see that part of it and agree, but at the same time he seems to take the biggest exception to the fact he bankrolled a suit that didn't involve him directly. In this particular case it was deserved suit, at the same time Gawker was creating a narrative that looking at JLaw's leaked nudes was like rape, they were bragging about ignoring a court order to take down the Hogan sex tape. But it could have just as easily been an iffier lawsuit if that had been convenient. Not to mention just grinding away at them bankrolling a near endless line of people suing gawker.

But still, fuck Gawker.

[Margalis]

I don't think Torinak's point is that it is bad Gawker got sued out of existence so much as it is worrying that one man had the power to do it. This time it was a deserving target. But what about next time?

A non-deserving target would presumably win in court.

[MahrinSkel]

It took a particular combination of circumstances; Someone with a high profile, that could claim major damages, but that Gawker calculated did not have enough cash on hand to see through a lawsuit. Frankly, they deserved to have their shit packed in over Justine Sacco, but she could never have claimed enough damages (just blew up her life, and she was just a low-level PR flunky).

If Thiel had been funding a hundred lawsuits hoping one of them would hit the lottery or the sheer expense of defending them all would drag Gawker down, I'd be more concerned.

--Dave

[Torinak]

I don't think Torinak's point is that it is bad Gawker got sued out of existence so much as it is worrying that one man had the power to do it. This time it was a deserving target. But what about next time?

Yes.  IMO, this kind of thing is an abuse of the legal system (and an entirely legal one).

I've seen too many legal uses of the legal system where someone with power just grinds down someone or something they don't like. There are anti-SLAPP laws in most states for good reasons, and there's a federal law to prevent libel venue shopping, all with the goal of protecting speech. Free speech is really, really, really important to a free country.

To be perfectly clear, I think Gawker should have lost the case. I'm not sad that their loss results in their bankruptcy. I'm bothered by the use of an unrelated lawsuit to punish an entity for what seems to be previously-made protected speech.

It took a particular combination of circumstances; Someone with a high profile, that could claim major damages, but that Gawker calculated did not have enough cash on hand to see through a lawsuit. Frankly, they deserved to have their shit packed in over Justine Sacco, but she could never have claimed enough damages (just blew up her life, and she was just a low-level PR flunky).

If Thiel had been funding a hundred lawsuits hoping one of them would hit the lottery or the sheer expense of defending them all would drag Gawker down, I'd be more concerned.

--Dave

According to the NYT, Thiel has confirmed funding multiple lawsuits against Gawker. He "funded a team of lawyers to find and help “victims” of the company’s coverage mount cases against Gawker." There are quotes from him where he claims he's just trying to stop a bully (Gawker) and that he believes in a free press. Based on discussions with a former colleague who's a well-known libertarian, it's not a contradiction--people should be free to say whatever they want (i.e., no government censorship), but governments shouldn't be able to protect speech either. In the real world, the result is that might (wealth) makes right when it comes to freedom of speech.

Due to the bankruptcy, Hulk Hogan may not even get much of the damage award. I wonder if he'll sue Thiel over that, especially if Gawker's insurance would have paid out more than he ends up getting?

[Goumindong]

Ch11 Bankruptcy cannot discharge judgements. Hogan will only not not get paid if whomever buys them appeals. (because they will almost certainly win, both on a reasonableness of penalty, and on prior precedent giving journalism a wide berth exactly because of people hitting press because of legit coverage they dont like).

Gawker filed because aren't liquid enough to put up the bond necessary to appeal(and because they expect that the harassment will continue until they fold, making anything throwing good money after bad). But whomever buys them can post that bond if they so wish.

[Margalis]

I've seen too many legal uses of the legal system where someone with power just grinds down someone or something they don't like.

This is exactly what Gawker has done for years to dozens of people. You don't seem too concerned about that.

(and because they expect that the harassment will continue until they fold, making anything throwing good money after bad).

Yes, it's Gawker who are the poor victims of "harassment."

[Khaldun]

I will underscore what's already been pointed out: Thiel has been backing a number of lawsuits against them, and his lawyers have apparently approached other possible clients to test their interest in a suit. That's the genuinely worrisome part of this whole thing. The scenario is pretty much, "Billionaire didn't like his sexuality being reported on and didn't like some of the other coverage of Silicon Valley (which included attention to legit stories like the covert Apple-Google collusion over keeping the price of skilled labor lower), so billionaire works with lawyers to come up with a plan for destroying the publication that did it." (Sure, Gawker Media may survive Chapter 11, but I guarantee Denton and virtually the entire existing staff will be gone--whatever remains is going to be something fundamentally different than what it was.)   I completely agree that's unwholesome and worrisome, especially when it comes to Silicon Valley oligarchs, who really need to have a skeptical, even hostile, press looking into their business activities.  I freely acknowledge it is maybe my own failing that I cannot give two fucks about Gawker, but I have been following them for a long time and they really represent the worst tendencies of online culture in multiple respects. This is like the collision of two of the worst aspects of 21st Century American life: a return of Gilded Age corruption and assholery and the impenetrably smug self-satisfaction of a certain type of ethically bereft and ferally untalented "digital native".  There were plenty of moments where Gawker's editors could have learned some important lessons and decided to grow up a bit, and they have refused again and again and again.

[01101010]

While it is a bit disturbing in looking at it on from above, the wildcard still is the fact that the lawsuit could have been decided the opposite way. You can bankroll it, but that does not necessarily mean you will win in court. Sure you have more resources, but if bribes are not involved, it will still come down to the decision of the court.

[KallDrexx]

On the one side, Gawker could have avoided all this by reporting about the sex tape and just not air it.  If they had done that then Hogan would have had no case.

On the other side Thiel's lawyers were crafting the lawsuit specifically to make Gawker shut down, going so far as withdrawing parts of the complain that would have triggered some of the payment coming from Gawker's journalistic insurance.

[Threash]

I don't think Torinak's point is that it is bad Gawker got sued out of existence so much as it is worrying that one man had the power to do it. This time it was a deserving target. But what about next time?

He only had the power to do it because Gawker was in the wrong.