Gawker implodes

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Anonymous Ocean, Jul 27, 2015.

  1. The owner is protecting a celebrity from a story about a Conde Nast owner soliciting a male prostitute. Reporters quit now the editor that supported the censorship is fired.
    I'm so glad you showed me cryptome!
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Anonymous Member

  3. Bill Arkin - A journo with balls and integrity. Gotta admire the guy.
  4. The Wrong Guy Member

    Gawker files bankruptcy after Hogan lawsuit as Ziff Davis shows interest | USA Today

    Gawker Media, which was recently ordered to pay about $140 million to Hulk Hogan, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Friday and put its assets up for sale, conceding its difficult future following a contentious invasion-of-privacy lawsuit brought by the former wrestler.

    Ziff Davis, the digital publisher of AskMen, PCMag and Computer Shopper, has placed a bid for Gawker's assets — with $100 million as the opening price — prior to an auction that will be supervised by the bankruptcy court, according to a person familiar with the matter.

    Continued here:

    Gawker Files for Bankruptcy as Thiel’s Legal War Rages | WIRED

    Gawker Exploring Lawsuit Against Peter Thiel | Forbes

    Gawker Media is exploring options for litigation against Peter Thiel following the billionaire venture capitalist’s secret funding of lawsuits against the media company. According to a source within Gawker, the company’s legal team is looking to see if Thiel, who said he spent about $10 million funding other people’s suits, violated any laws.

    “The lawyers are exploring whether this could be a case of tortious interference, racketeering or other potential claims,” said the source.

    Continued here: Hogan
  6. Gawker a day for the mentally challenged .
    Sad but true.
  7. The Wrong Guy Member

  8. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 1
  9. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 1
  10. The Wrong Guy Member to End Operations Next Week

    By J.K. Trotter, Gawker, August 18, 2016


    After nearly fourteen years of operation, will be shutting down next week. The decision to close Gawker comes days after Univision successfully bid $135 million for Gawker Media’s six other websites, and four months after the Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel revealed his clandestine legal campaign against the company.

    Nick Denton, the company’s outgoing CEO, informed current staffers of the site’s fate on Thursday afternoon, just hours before a bankruptcy court in Manhattan will decide whether to approve Univision’s bid for Gawker Media’s other assets. Staffers will soon be assigned to other editorial roles, either at one of the other six sites or elsewhere within Univision. Near-term plans for’s coverage, as well as the site’s archives, have not yet been finalized.

    Source, with thousands of comments:
  11. The Wrong Guy Member dies next week, killed by an unhappy subject | Chicago Tribune

    Why the Death of Gawker Isn't Something to Cheer About | Fortune

    Why is shutting down next week | Vox

    Peter Thiel Just Got His Wish: Gawker Is Shutting Down | WIRED
  12. The Internet Member

    Hopefully somebody will save Gawker's Scientology articles.
  13. Stalking, Scientology and sex: Gawker's biggest moments. has announced that it will be ending operations next week:

    As noted in an Associated Press article, among other things Gawker became famous for publishing the Ton Cruise Scientology video:

    * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

    Tom Cruise's Scientology recruitment video

    In 2008 Gawker published a Scientology recruitment video featuring a black-turtlenecked Tom Cruise. It showed just how fanatic the actor was about his religion. It was a side of Cruise no one had quite seen before.

    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

    Whatever one may think of Gawker otherwise, Gawker was the first news organization that stood up to the Church of Scientology's threats of litigation to publish the Tom Cruise Scientology video. Gawker's publication of that video was significant.
    • Like Like x 2
  14. The Wrong Guy Member

  15. The Wrong Guy Member

    Gawker Was Murdered by Gaslight

    By Tom Scocca, Gawker, August 22, 2016


    A lie with a billion dollars behind it is stronger than the truth. Peter Thiel has shut down

    This is the final act in what Thiel wished to present, and succeeded in presenting, as a simple and ancient morality play, a story of hubris meeting its punishment. The premise behind that morality play was, as Thiel wrote in space given him by the New York Times last week, that “cruelty and recklessness were intrinsic parts of Gawker’s business model.” The $140 million judgment that his lawyers secured for Hulk Hogan against Gawker Media, sending the company into a bankruptcy from which its flagship site would not emerge, was a matter of “proving that there are consequences for violating privacy.”

    The Times didn’t really need to give Thiel the space in the opinion section to tell his story of the wages of recklessness. You could get it directly from the Times’ own reporters in the news pages. “Gawker’s take-no-prisoners approach has...been to its detriment,” the business section reported. Gawker was, the Styles section wrote, “a place where too many of the articles published were not only mean but inconsequential.”

    The message is that Gawker had this coming, that the site was — to some degree, depending on how sympathetic the writer is trying to pose as being — responsible for its own downfall. By now it is conventional wisdom. That conventional wisdom is false. is out of business because one wealthy person maliciously set out to destroy it, spending millions of dollars in secret, and succeeded. That is the only reason.

    The strange and embarrassing thing about being the target of a conspiracy, an actual conspiracy, is that it undermines one’s own understanding of the world. It is true that Gawker was always a publication that took risks. It had bad manners and sometimes bad judgment. Occasionally, it published things that it would regret—just as, for instance, the New York Times has published things that it regrets.

    But every publication gives itself room to make mistakes, and is prepared to absorb the damage when it does make a mistake. The New York Post was so eager for a scoop on the Boston Marathon bombing that it put a photo of two innocent men on its front page, after law enforcement had already declared that they were not suspects. The Post was denounced, as it deserved to be, for callously crossing the line, and it ended up settling a defamation lawsuit.

    Lawsuits and settlements happen to everyone, and everyone carries insurance to handle them. In Gawker’s wildest, most buccaneering years, it never came close to paying a million dollars for crossing a line.

    What Thiel’s covert campaign against Gawker did was to invisibly change the terms of the risk calculation. The change begins with the post about Thiel’s sexual identity in a homophobic investor culture, the post Thiel now cites as the inspiration for his decision to destroy Gawker. It was solidly protected by media law and the First Amendment, as were the other posts that, as Thiel wrote, “attacked and mocked people” — specifically, his cohort of rising plutocrats in Silicon Valley. Hurting rich people’s feelings is, in principle, not a punishable offense.

    So rather than fighting the material that he really objected to, Thiel went looking for pretexts. Over time, he came up with them. Gawker found itself attracting legal threats and lawsuits at an unprecedented rate. Among those was Hulk Hogan’s complaint against Gawker for having written about a sex video he appeared in, and for publishing brief excerpts of that video. This was the kind of case that, in the normal course of things, would have gone away. Hogan’s first two attempts to pursue it, in federal court, went nowhere, with judges ruling that the publication was newsworthy and protected.

    Yet the case kept moving. Suddenly the company had exhausted the limits of its insurance and was bleeding money on legal fees. The business model on which it had thrived — writing things that people were interested in reading, and selling ads to reach those readers — was foundering due to a whole new class of expenses.

    The natural conclusion, even for people on the inside, was that the company must have taken too many risks. The willingness to publish things too ugly for other outlets to touch — an account of seeing video of the mayor of Toronto smoking crack, domestic-violence accusations against Bill O’Reilly — had gone over to destructive irresponsibility, and we were being punished for it. The business side began to believe the editorial side was heedlessly dragging the company down; the editorial side began to believe the business side was fearfully prepared to undermine its integrity.

    Nick Denton himself, having taunted and titillated other journalists for years with the message that Gawker would do what they wouldn’t, found that message turned back on him. He internalized what his critics and his legal bills were telling him — that the site was out of control, that it had grown too reckless and irresponsible for the power it had grown to wield. In a recurring and nigh comical routine, he took to asking his editors and writers over and over again, in slightly different ways for slightly different occasions, to name the best stories they’d done, to remind him over and over of what the mission was that he had come up with years before.

    Former Gawker editor Max Read wrote an account of this era for New York magazine, where he now works. It was Read and executive editor Tommy Craggs who resigned from Gawker in the summer of last year, after the strain between the editorial and business departments — and between the two sides of Denton’s mind — broke into an open rupture over the publication of a post about a business executive’s entanglement with an escort, and over the company’s decision to remove that post.

    Read’s assessment of that episode is clear-eyed and self-critical, and is probably as good a rendition of the story of that disastrous post as can be written. It does not, however, explain Gawker’s demise. Having worked closely with Craggs and Read, and having lived through the whole thing firsthand, I found Read’s history of the era unsettling: It is a thoughtful, deeply considered, and on certain levels deadly accurate portrait, but it is still inescapably a portrait drawn by gaslight.

    Read wrote:

    We hadn’t exposed any great hypocrisy; instead, we’d taken a bit of gossip and brought the full bludgeoning of moral urgency and ideological commitments to bear on it.

    Whatever we’d hoped to accomplish with that story, we instead reaffirmed the world’s understanding of what we were: needlessly cruel. Within a week of publication, Nick was promising in interviews a “20 percent nicer” version of Gawker.

    That’s not false, on its own terms. When it gets to “the world’s understanding of what we were,” though, it slides into the shadows. The world’s understanding was inescapably shaped by the fact that we had a $100 million lawsuit closing in on us. The Daily Dot, in a roundup of Gawker’s various misdeeds, wrote:

    Unlike the most recent case of Gawker’s editorial staff ignoring their better judgement, many of these incidents surrounding the site rest on the belief that celebrities can hold no reasonable expectation of privacy — an argument the site’s lawyers are fighting for in court against a lawsuit levied by Hulk Hogan over a sex tape. The $100 million lawsuit is the most serious challenge faced by Gawker yet and, as Denton explained, might have helped cement his decision to remove the story

    Elsewhere, the same piece argued:

    [L]arge chunks of Internet culture need to be cleansed of their filthier, less morally sound components if they can hope to survive at all. Gawker is no different.

    Somehow, it had become the case that the world was discussing whether a perennially profitable and growing publication could “hope to survive at all.” In one span of a little more than a year, not very long ago, the New York Times mistakenly accepted (and cheered for) a failed Venezuelan coup, printed falsehoods that helped carry the case for invading Iraq, and saw its top editors resign after a humiliating plagiarism scandal. No one suggested the paper had signed its own death warrant.

    That the New York Times has the right to exist, to rise above its failings, is taken for granted. No one would mistake the Times for Gawker. At the party this month marking the end of Nick Denton’s ownership of Gawker — and, though we did not quite know it then, the end of — a reporter for the Times, the one who would file the story calling our work “mean” and “inconsequential,” dug into me. Why, he wanted to know, did it seem that no one at Gawker was willing to admit any fault?

    This was a stupid question, and I tried to tell him so as nicely as I could. The fact of Thiel’s campaign against Gawker made the question stupid on two different levels. One of those levels was simply practical: What the Hogan trial had demonstrated, and what the other Thiel-backed lawsuits were affirming, was that Gawker’s culture of open dispute and self-criticism had become too dangerous. Hostile lawyers were being paid to look for any negative remark any of us might make, to read it into the record against us.

    But it was also stupid in its broad themes. The reason why nobody at Gawker was counting up our sins as our doom descended was that we had realized, belatedly, that the sins and the doom were unconnected. We had reckoned deeply with our regrets and our contradictions, and nothing about them began to add up to $140 million.

    Still, the Times reporter asked, what were my own regrets? I told him, finally, that I had worked at Gawker Media for five years, and that all I could say was that nothing in that time was as shameful to me as a story the Times had put on its front page the month before, slanting the results of a study to argue that police weren’t really disproportionately killing black people. I would have been ashamed, I said, if we had run that.

    For any number of reasons, that quote didn’t make it into the story. The story was, by its own lights, a melancholy and nuanced one, a portrait of the end of an era. It surveyed the history of the company and the achievements of the people who’ve left it; it concluded with a glimpse of tears in Nick Denton’s eyes.

    Again, none of that is why is shutting down tomorrow. Here is the transcript that explains exactly why it is shutting down. It is from a June 10 hearing in the Pinellas County Circuit Court, in which Judge Pamela Campbell, speaking to Gawker’s lawyer Michael Berry, ordered Hogan be granted immediate access to the company’s assets:

    THE COURT: I’m signing the order today.
    MR. BERRY: Okay. Well, then what I’d like to do, Your Honor, is request a temporary stay to allow us to seek review of that order from the [District Court of Appeal]. We would ask for a temporary stay for a week so that we can file a motion with the DCA by Monday morning — by Monday, and provide plaintiff time to respond. We will ask for this order to be stayed from — for seven days from the entry of it.
    THE COURT: That will be denied.
    MR. BERRY: Can we ask for until 5:00 p.m. on Monday?
    THE COURT: No. Denied.
    MR. BERRY: To the end of the day today?
    THE COURT: No.
    MR. BERRY: Two hours?
    THE COURT: I mean, really, we’re way beyond all that.


    MR. BERRY: I just ask on behalf of the DCA to provide them the courtesy that we are going to be moving for a stay for them and would like time for the judges there to be able to rule on a request for a stay.
    THE COURT: Okay. Denied. I have denied the request.

    At this point we had moved past anything having to do with what Gawker did or what it was. We were past the spectacle of the Hogan trial, a trial supposedly about an act of publication, in which the judge had refused to allow the published material to be considered in open court.

    Gawker was simply a civil defendant, facing a judgment too large to pay, after a plaintiff had structured the case so that insurance would not help cover the damages. The company was asking only to survive long enough to put the judgment before a higher court, on appeal. This is, supposedly, how the system works.

    Instead, there would be no chance to appeal before the company was destroyed. Here was money talking, and nothing but money. The only law was the judge.

    It’s a hard story for journalists to tell. Journalists are, despite their political reputation, fundamentally conservative. The only way to keep explaining what’s happening in the world, day after day, is to rely on some basic frames. Cause and effect have to unfold within stable institutions, according to accepted rules.

    A story that falls outside the everyday frames — The mayor is a crackhead who leaves a trail of violence where he goes, say, or This beloved entertainer is accused of being a serial rapist — requires a radical shift of perspective. Possibly the best and truest part of the movie Spotlight was how much of the Boston Globe’s investigation into the Catholic Church’s secret sexual abuse came out of the Globe’s own morgue. The paper had already written the story, piece by piece. It just hadn’t read it.

    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.

    If you want to write stories that might anger a billionaire, you need to work for another billionaire yourself, or for a billion-dollar corporation. The law will not protect you. There is no freedom in this world but power and money.

    • Like Like x 1
  16. The Internet Member

    ^I wish I could like that excerpt a hundred times. Because it articulates something I have felt but could not put into words. "The sins and the doom were unconnected."

    Everybody makes mistakes but usually they are forgivable mistakes. Scientology cherry picks dirt and rabble rouses against targets to bring about their doom. But without that digging those targets would have been forgiven.

    I guess that is why the NSA domestic surveillance program worried me. It set up a system where it would be too easy to cherry pick dirt on individuals to make them guilty of something.
  17. Mann Ace Member

    Gawker lost me when they did this.
  18. Zander Member

    I just read National Enquirer that DM’s bro got caught with his pants down by the FBI.
  19. Kilia Member

  20. Incredulicide Member

    • Like Like x 2
  21. LOL
    Ron Senior = rapist
    Ron Junior = whore addict
    ... figures
  22. The Wrong Guy Member

  23. The Wrong Guy Member

    Hulk Hogan set to accept $31M Gawker settlement offer | New York Post


    Gawker has offered Hulk Hogan $31 million to settle a $140 million jury verdict awarded for posting to the web site a video of the wrestler and his best friend’s wife having sex, according to papers filed in Manhattan bankruptcy court Wednesday.

    Hogan is expected to accept the deal, which still needs to be approved by a judge. The whopping award, handed down by a Florida jury in March, drove Gawker into bankruptcy three months later.

    Continued here:

    Tom Scocca ‏@tomscocca 42 minutes ago
    The man who filmed Hulk Hogan having sex settled for $5,000.

    Tom Scocca ‏@tomscocca 41 minutes ago
    I am available for comment on the settlement.

    Tom Scocca ‏@tomscocca 34 minutes ago
    I guess now we're allowed to say that judge Pamela Campbell was literally so stupid she didn't know "speech" could mean publishing video.

    Tom Scocca ‏@tomscocca 32 minutes ago
    She made it clear in a pretrial hearing she thought "free speech" referred to the words coming out the mouths of the people in the video.

    Tom Scocca ‏@tomscocca 29 minutes ago
    Hulk Hogan and at least one of his lawyers lied under oath at the trial, saying they hadn't demanded the text come down when they had.

    Tom Scocca ‏@tomscocca 8 minutes ago
    Here, for reference, is a publicly available trial document of the article Hulk Hogan wanted taken down.



    Tom Scocca ‏@tomscocca 3 minutes ago
    Best of luck to whoever else Peter Thiel and Charles Harder try to destroy for writing true stories.

    Tom Scocca ‏@tomscocca 11 minutes ago
    They also lied under oath about their knowledge of other videos.

    Tom Scocca ‏@tomscocca 11 minutes ago
    Judge Pamela Campbell, however, suppressed the FBI transcripts that would have demonstrated they were lying about that.
  24. The Wrong Guy Member

  25. The Wrong Guy Member

    Film about Gawker Lawsuit with Hulk Hogan Among Sundance ’17 Selections | Showbiz411


    “Nobody Speak: Hulk Hogan, Gawker and Trials of a Free Press”

    Director Brian Knappenberger (“The Internet’s Own Boy,” SFF ’14) chronicles wrestler Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker Media, examining privacy rights vs. freedom of the press and how big money can silence the news.
  26. The Wrong Guy Member

    Peter Thiel May Be Looking To Buy

    Lawyers for the Silicon Valley billionaire filed a motion in court on Wednesday to challenge a provision that prevented him from buying the assets of the now defunct That move lays the groundwork for a possible bid for the website and its archive.

    By Ryan Mac, BuzzFeed


    In a federal bankruptcy court filing on Wednesday, lawyers for venture capitalist Peter Thiel objected to the ongoing sale process of, arguing that the billionaire has been unfairly excluded from bidding for the assets of the defunct news website.

    The filing, which comes more than a year after the revelation that Thiel helped finance a clandestine legal war to destroy’s parent company, Gawker Media, lays the groundwork for the Facebook board member’s possible bid for the dormant website. While its sister sites were sold to Univision in August 2016 for $135 million following Gawker Media’s bankruptcy, a bankruptcy plan administrator has not been able to find a buyer for Whoever ends up buying the site will also buy its archives, which are still up, and will have the right to do with them what they want, including delete them.

    In the filing, Thiel’s lawyers allege that he was prevented from receiving information in regard to a potential bid for by plan administrator William Holden and his counsel, Gregg Galardi, following a Wall Street Journal story in October that said Holden and Galardi had started to market the website to potential buyers. Holden and Galardi have been “maintaining selective secrecy over that process,” according to Thiel’s lawyers from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.

    “In light of the Plan Administrator's refusal to allow Mr. Thiel to participate in the sale process, Mr. Thiel's counsel requested that the Plan Administrator agree to pause the ongoing sale process so that a sale of the assets is not consummated until the issues concerning the Plan Administrator's blockade of Mr. Thiel as a bidder are resolved,” the filing reads.

    A spokesperson for Thiel declined to comment. Holden and Galardi did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    The sale of’s assets — including its domain name, social media channels, and 14-year archive — is one of the last chapters of a saga that began with former professional wrestler Hulk Hogan’s invasion of privacy lawsuit and resulted in Gawker Media’s bankruptcy. In May 2015, Forbes revealed that Thiel, motivated in part by a 2007 Gawker story about his sexuality, had spent millions of dollars funding Hogan’s legal challenge.

    Unable to pay the $140 million verdict awarded to Hogan by a Florida jury, Gawker Media filed for bankruptcy and sold most of its sites to Univision last year. Since then, Gawker’s estate administrator and lawyers have been in and out of federal bankruptcy court in New York, where they’ve ironed out provisions from the sale of Gawker’s assets and sought to open legal discovery into Thiel for his role in aiding Hogan’s lawsuit. The Wall Street Journal reported that Holden has been exploring the sale of since July, and that he recently marketed the site’s potential legal claims against Thiel as part of its appeal.

    The marketing of those claims is at the center of Thiel's complaint, in which his lawyers argue that Holden should not be able to conduct a sale of those claims and ask that the court drop a motion that allows for discovery to move forward. Thiel's representatives also said that they contacted those administrating the sale of last month "to express Mr. Thiel's interest in participating in the sale process," but that they had been rebuffed and then ignored.

    "By wrongly excluding Mr. Thiel, the most able and logical purchaser, from the sale process on specious grounds ... the Plan Administrator will only depress the value to be achieved in any sale," the billionaire's lawyers argue.

    Continued at
  27. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    Complicado of Gawkers assets is a potential monetary award from proving Thiel committed fraud or was otherwise twisty and Thiel hopes to buy Gawker to end that potential lawsuit. Hmm.
  28. The Wrong Guy Member

    Gawker Gets its First Outside Investment, From a Russian Oligarch | Fortune


    Gawker Media’s status as one of the largest U.S. media players to be funded entirely by insiders is about to come to an end. Founder and CEO Nick Denton confirmed on Wednesday that he has agreed to sell a minority stake in the company to an investment fund called Columbus Nova Technology Partners.

    The deal still has to be approved by shareholders, but that shouldn’t be a problem, since Denton and senior staff (both current and former) are estimated to control more than 95% of Gawker. According to one recent report, Denton personally controls 68% of the company, which is estimated to be worth between $300 million and $400 million.


    Gawker hasn’t revealed the size of the stake that Columbus Nova is acquiring, except to say that it’s a minority investment. Columbus Nova is the U.S. investment arm of the Renova Group and owns Rhapsody and several other technology companies, including what used to be Sony Online Entertainment, makers of the game Everquest.

    Renova, which was founded by Russian billionaire Viktor Vekselberg, is an industrial conglomerate that has investments in the mining, chemical, construction, housing, and financial sectors. Vekselberg’s net worth is estimated at $18 billion.

    When asked during the same instant messenger conversation whether he is concerned about having a Russian oligarch as an investor in his company, Denton replied, “Do Brooklyn Nets fans have concerns that the NBA team is owned by Mikhail Prokhorov?”

    More at
  29. The Wrong Guy Member

    Gawker site finds bidder after court approves settlement with billionaire Thiel | Reuters


    The co-founder of New York-based marketing firm Didit is interested in buying gossip website Gawker Media LLC out of bankruptcy after a U.S. judge on Thursday approved a settlement with the investor Peter Thiel, whose funding of a lawsuit against Gawker forced it to close in 2016.

    A bid by Kevin Lee, co-founder and executive chairman of Didit, has set a floor price for other potential buyers in a bankruptcy auction, according to people familiar with the matter.

    As part of the settlement approved by Judge Stuart Bernstein of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York on Thursday, Thiel Capital LLC agreed to drop its bid to buy Gawker and its archives and also agreed to release claims against any eventual buyer.

    The settlement was originally proposed when Thiel abandoned his effort to buy the defunct site last month.

    “We remain interested in and if we prevail, (we) plan to relaunch Gawker as Gawker For Good, using ad revenues to donate to non-profits,” Lee, a search engine marketing expert, said in a statement.

    Lee declined to comment on making the initial offer to buy the site in the upcoming bankruptcy auction.

    The sources requested anonymity to discuss a matter that was not public.

    Continued at
    • Like Like x 1
  30. The Wrong Guy Member

    Exclusive: Gawker Set to Relaunch Under New Owner Bryan Goldberg | Variety

    Amanda Hale hired as publisher for new iteration of the media gossip blog


    Gawker will rise from the ashes in a new iteration of the website to be launched next year, Variety has learned.

    The reborn Gawker comes under the ownership of Bryan Goldberg, founder and CEO of Bustle Digital Group, who was the winning bidder for the remaining assets of Gawker Media in July. Goldberg paid $1.35 million for the media gossip blog, which has been dormant for over two years after Gawker Media was sued into bankruptcy by Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel.

    In a memo to Bustle staff Tuesday obtained by Variety, Goldberg said he has hired Amanda Hale as the new publisher of Gawker. Based in New York, Hale most recently was chief revenue officer of The Outline, the culture website founded by Joshua Topolsky (who previously worked at Bloomberg Media and The Verge) that has recently laid off much of its staff.

    Goldberg is targeting the Gawker relaunch for early 2019. “We won’t recreate Gawker exactly as it was, but we will build upon Gawker’s legacy and triumphs — and learn from its missteps,” he wrote in the memo. “In so doing, we aim to create something new, vibrant, highly relevant, and worth visiting daily.”

    The relaunched Gawker will be “completely distinct from our other properties and sit within a separate corporate subsidiary,” according to Goldberg’s memo, although it will use Bustle’s shared resources, technology, and business platform.

    A rep for Bustle confirmed the memo’s authenticity but declined to provide additional comment.

    Hale, who has a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University, previously worked as an ad exec for political news sites including Talking Points Memo and The Nation. Earlier, she worked as a communications staffer for various political campaigns, including the Senate campaign of Barack Obama.

    At this point, Hale and Goldberg haven’t made any editorial hires for the new Gawker. One question remaining is what will happen to Gawker’s archive of nearly 200,000 articles, which Goldberg also acquired ownership of in the bankruptcy proceeding. According to a source familiar with the situation, Goldberg plans to maintain access to the Gawker content archive.

    Continued at
    • Like Like x 1
  31. The Wrong Guy Member

    Gawker 2.0 Implodes as Its Only Reporters Quit

    The new site’s only two full-time writers exited Wednesday in protest of editorial director Carson Griffith’s offensive remarks about everything from race to penis size.

    By Maxwell Tani, The Daily Beast, January 23, 2019


    Gawker 2.0 is blowing up on the launchpad just two weeks after the site’s first group of new staffers came aboard.

    On Wednesday morning, the site’s only two full-time writers—former Vanity Fair writer Maya Kosoff and former Cosmopolitan writer Anna Breslaw—announced in a statement to The Daily Beast that they have left over concerns about Carson Griffith, the recently hired editorial director.

    “We’re disappointed it ended this way, but we can’t continue to work under someone who is antithetical to our sensibility and journalistic ethics, or for an employer [CEO Bryan Goldberg] who refuses to listen to the women who work for him when it’s inconvenient,” Kosoff and Breslaw said.

    The two reporters said they decided to leave the new Gawker after Bustle Digital Group—which bought the shuttered domain and its archives in a mid-2018 fire sale—refused to oust Griffith over offensive workplace comments about everything from poor people to black writers to her acquaintance’s penis size.

    Kosoff and Breslaw said they met with human resources to complain of several instances in which they felt personally uncomfortable working with Griffith.

    In particular, Kosoff—a former colleague and personal friend of this reporter—described to human resources an incident in which Griffith forwarded an unsolicited chain email showing the editorial director’s friends boasting they knew the penis size of a prominent businessman.

    “My one good memory from the...trip (besides meeting carson) is him in a swimsuit,” one of Griffith’s friends wrote, according to a copy of the thread reviewed by The Daily Beast.

    “Hung?” another friend asked.

    “Ha! Omg I feel like that is a question Carson would know :),” Griffith’s friend responded.

    The two reporters also relayed to human-resources instances in which they believed Griffith—who holds a management role at the site—expressed an uncomfortably negative attitude on issues related to workplace diversity.

    In a Slack message reviewed by The Daily Beast, Griffith seemed to brag to Gawker staff that she had gotten them out of a company-wide diversity training session, though neither Kosoff nor Breslaw had asked her to do so. The two ended up attending.

    Continued at

    More at"Carson Griffith"
  32. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    He bought it to keep people who worked for Gawker suing him for crooked dealing, he has all the files on the deal.
    So he may want it to implode at this point because that guy as an editor sounds so inappropriate that it must be on purpose
  33. The Wrong Guy Member

    Carson Griffith is a woman."Carson Griffith"&tbm=isch
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins