Gawker's Death (1 Viewer)

[Galbreath34]

I guess Gawker was always mostly politically slanted, so figure drop this on the PDB.

Not sure if anyone else got good laughs and sometimes a good think or two from them over the years. I thought the end of the farewell from one of their main bloggers was pretty good.

What Was Gawker?*

Most attempts to explain this publication’s editorial direction tell you more about the person doing the explaining than they do about this publication. With a little cherry-picking you can make it seem like our focus was just about anything. In truth, we had no focus. We had writers. Gawker was what its writers wrote. When the writers were great, the site was great, and when the writers were less than great, you get the idea. Gawker was anarchist journalism at its finest. Every day, a page to be filled; every day, a chance for greatness, or idiocy. This site contains the very best and worst things that many writers have written. This fact drives many people mad. But to the sort of person who was cut out to be a Gawker writer, it was just right. It was better than having a byline in the New York Times; it was having the chance to say **** the New York Times. In a place where the New York Times would see it!

While Gawker did not have a real editorial direction, it did have a sensibility. Imagine a group of reporters gazing upon a lavishly decorated Barneys display window. One reporter remarks upon the fine craftsmanship of the interior decoration and artfully arrayed Louboutin heels within. One reporter discusses the marketing strategy for these luxury heels, and how this might contribute to the company’s bottom line. And the Gawker reporter throws a rock through the window and screams, “It’s just a ****in shoe!”

Some people like this sensibility and some people don’t. There is no wrong answer.

A Gawker editor of the past coined the slogan, “Honesty is our only virtue.” That will do as well as anything. Many Gawker readers did not think we were the best writers, nor did they even particularly like us; they read Gawker because they knew that we would tell the truth about whatever was happening. No ********. Well, some ********. You can’t have great ideas every day.

Blogging is not a real job. Construction is a real job. Working in a restaurant is a real job. Being a teacher is a real job. Blogging is something you get to do. It is a quirky form of daily journalism, falling somewhere between live TV news and magazine writing, calling for sharp news judgment, an irrational taste for argument, and a complete absence of high standards. Anyone who made a living doing this for one single day is luckier than most. We are certainly grateful for the chance we had to type things for you all.

This is not the end. It’s just a ****in shoe.

 

[CountWhoDat]

I've been a dedicated Deadspin reader since high school, and therefore I became familiar with Gawker and a lot of its writers.

I always thought Gawker was a step below its sister blogs in content, but many of the writers were very talented as evidenced by the fact that they were farmed off to other gigs all over the place. I'm more concerned about the precedent set by Gawker's demise than the fact that the site won't be around anymore.

Just don't take Deadspin away from me.

 

[Galbreath34]

Yeah I was more Gizmodo and Deadspin, with occasional Lifehacker and Kotaku until the last year or two. Deadspin and Gawker were the only ones that were not quite ok to check at work, so usually checked them on the phone.

 

[Alan]

http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/icann-domain-names-october-1/

This is getting so little attention....or is it?

 

[Galbreath34]

ICANN has been in control in all but name for about 5 years now. The current body that's taking over has been making all the decisions and doing everything since 2011 or 2012 at the latest.

Edit: looked it up and NBC and others are actually saying ICANN was calling the shots since 1998 (http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/u-s-ready-hand-over-control-internet-naming-system-n634796) just no more outside chance of an NTIA veto anymore.

 

[Alan]

ICANN has been in control in all but name for about 5 years now. The current body that's taking over has been making all the decisions and doing everything since 2011 or 2012 at the latest.

Edit: looked it up and NBC and others are actually saying ICANN was calling the shots since 1998 (U.S. Ready to Hand Over Control of the Internet Naming System - NBC News) just no more outside chance of an NTIA veto anymore.

My apprehension is ...


The decision to give ICANN the keys to the kingdom has been the plan all along. In a 1998 policy statement, the NTIA said it was committed to a transition that would let the private sector take over management of the domain name system.

Just putting it out there to discuss as I am apt to do with a topic.

 

[Galbreath34]

I prefer an NGO to the Hague or a UN council. Besides, they're run it well and responsibly for 18 years, especially totally independent since whenever it was they told the NTIA and US gov to suck it over .xxx. They basically put it to fire us and do it yourselves or get out of the way, and since then they've definitely been doing it all on their own.

 

[crosswatt]

Gawker Was Murdered by Gaslight

Gawker always said it was in the business of publishing true stories. Here is one last true story: You live in a country where a billionaire can put a publication out of business. A billionaire can pick off an individual writer and leave that person penniless and without legal protection.

 

[Galbreath34]

Yeah. The long Denton final word was not as pithy, but itt faced that "How it works" head on too though. Not sure how long the bankruptcy court lets them keep the servers on.

Indeed, Gawker’s record for accuracy is excellent. For a site as reckless as it is purported to be, there have been no Jayson Blairs, no conflict-of-interest or plagiarism scandals, no career-ending corrections. The chief rule of establishment journalism that it violated to its detriment, it seems, is the one that recommends against pissing off billionaires.

But the readers don’t have the power. It’s difficult to recall now, but at Gawker’s founding there was a sense that the internet was a free space, where anything can be said. An island off the mainland, where people could be themselves. Where writers could say things that would get you fired in an instant from a print publication. Where you could say what you thought without fear of being fired, or sued out of existence. But when you try to make a business out of that freedom, the system will fight you.
As our experience has shown, that freedom was illusory. The system is still there. It pushed back. The power structure remains. There are just some new people at the apex, prime among them the techlords flush with monopoly profits. They are as sensitive to criticism as any other ruling class, but with the confidence that they can transform and disrupt anything, from government to the press.

I think there's really something to that new money monopoly arrogance being even stronger than the old money used to ruling class. Same historically as the railroad guys or others. They're the idealistic opposite of the free speech journalists, who believe anything can be conquered and made theirs, because nothing has stopped them yet and they see the limitless power as self-made and personal.

 

[CountWhoDat]

I think there's really something to that new money monopoly arrogance being even stronger than the old money used to ruling class. Same historically as the railroad guys or others. They're the idealistic opposite of the free speech journalists, who believe anything can be conquered and made theirs, because nothing has stopped them yet and they see the limitless power as self-made and personal.

This is truly scary. These are the people that have effectively stalled and neutered our system of self-government, so why would they bat an eye at using their vast resources to destroy a "gossip site"? Thiel in particular is a real piece of work and I hope the rest of the web journalism outsiders never let rest for what he's done.

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

Like a lot of people I was much more likely to read Deadspin than any of the other sites. The main Gawker site seemed to focus on people I'd never heard of and certainly didnt care much about - I've never been knee deep in the New York/SF tech/journalist/celeb world - but it does seem like it helped fuel the rise of internet outrage that has just poisoned things online.

Like when they completely destroyed the life of the lady that flew to South Africa between the time she took off and landed over an AIDS joke on Twitter #HasJustineLandedYet?

They finally messed with the wrong dude and got knocked on their butt. Hard to feel bad for them.

 

[Galbreath34]

Well, the last 5+ years I think the Gawker site had been more focused on national news than tech, but I didn't read it much except when those stories popped up until the run up to this election.

As far a the tech giants a resources, a real mixed bag. The turds like Thiel, the guys like Gates who basically do the kinds of things you think foreign aid and Peace Corps should already be getting done, and a bunch you just don't know about.

I did in all this learn about the term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champerty_and_maintenance and am saddened that it's not a crime in the US and is no longer one in the UK.

 

[Twenty]

It was the beginning of the end for all Gawker media when Deadspin stopped doing Tuesday Night Fights.

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

I did in all this learn about the term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champerty_and_maintenance and am saddened that it's not a crime in the US and is no longer one in the UK.

It would make for an interesting debate in Congress as it would knock out contingency fees from American legal practice. It would also knock out a lot of the current "policy by litigation" that occurs from 3rd party funding of lawsuits against the government, etc.

I'd be all for it - and incorporate "loser pays" while we're at it.

 

[Domefan504]

Damn You Hulk Hogan.

 

[Galbreath34]

A pretty thoughtful look at Gawker's legacy from Rolling Stone.

Legacy of Snark: Why Gawker Mattered - Rolling Stone

If you want a one-line valediction, take this: Look at who is celebrating today the hardest, and see if, while it lasted, Gawker didn't make enemies of all the right *******s.