Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media News

Gawker.com To End Operations Next Week (gawker.com) 134

After nearly 14 years of operations, Gawker.com will be shutting down next week, the company's outgoing CEO Nick Denton told the staff Thursday. The decision comes days after Univision said it would buy Gawker Media properties -- Gizmodo, Jezebel, Kotaku etc (but not Gawker.com) -- for a sum of $135 million. The publication is currently in the middle of multiple lawsuits, with billionaire Peter Thiel revealing his clandestine legal campaign against the company. In a blog post, Gawker made the announcement. From the story: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 Gawker.com's coverage, as well as the site's archives, have not yet been finalized.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gawker.com To End Operations Next Week

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18, 2016 @03:18PM (#52728129)

    Gawker was largely a trash publication and provided little value journalistically. It was largely a place for snobs to act like jerks. They messed up publishing that Hulk Hogan video.

    • by tripleevenfall ( 1990004 ) on Thursday August 18, 2016 @03:20PM (#52728157)

      Gawker was largely a trash publication and provided little value journalistically. It was largely a place for snobs to act like jerks.

      You just described about 95% of "new media"

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by halfstop ( 3554705 )
        That's true. The media was awful in 2003 when they failed to do their job before we invaded Iraq, it's only gotten worse. It's just wretched right now.
        • Do you think Hillary would have voted differently if journalism had been different?

          • I think so. I think had news orgs drilled into the claims being made by the Bush Administration I think politicians would have had a harder time supporting the war.
        • Not everyone failed. I know for a fact CNN had multiple stories on the shady information Bush was using, poking holes in his lies.

          But since people consider CNN left leaning they ignored the reports, caught up in the RA! RA! of invading someone.

          Even when the lies of how the Iraqis would welcome us, how they would pay for everything through their oil profits, were shown to devoid of reality, people kept calling CNN liars and anti-American for pointing out the ugly truths.

          If Trump had been pres
          • "I feel like Iraq was stolen from us," said Mr Jabouri. "Bush and Blair are liars. They destroyed Iraq and took us back to zero, and took us back to the Middle Ages or earlier. If I was a criminal, I would kill them with my bare hands."

            I can't help but notice that his statement comes a few years after Obama abandoned Iraq and consequently allowed ISIS to take over a third of the country.

            • by swalve ( 1980968 )
              The new government of Iraq asked us to leave. GWB started that process, and Obama stalled it as long as he could.
              • Obama stalled it as long as he could

                That just isn't true. Obama from the moment he took office essentially ignored Nouri al-Maliki his executive counter part, who desperately wanted to work the US and have our help. His problem was he could not get a lot of backing for his legislature on the status of forces agreement. Obama knows a thing or two about executive power, there was a lot he could have done before the agreement expired that he/we did not do to complete the training of forces the pacifying of very rebel groups. Obama started bring troops home pretty much the day he took office with little regard for completing the mission. It was his administration and Hillary's state department that set al-Maliki up for failure. The fact is early in the Obama presidency he was not interested in Iraq and had campaigned on leveling. He even took credit for 'getting us out' despite the fact that it was Bush's status of forces agreement that was expiring, at the time it was presented as Obama delivering on a campaign promise, suddenly Bush owned it again when it was revealed to have been premature.

                Had al-Maliki been seen as stronger and more successful he might have the political capital at home to go after the conditions we required for the status of forces, namely legal immunity for our troops. We could have worked to make the the case but Obama did not do so.

                Its also true that we still could have very much 'told' the Iraqi government, "look this is how it is," yes that would have crossed a line making us an occupying force but none the less we *could* have done it and I think in retrospect perhaps we should have.

                So its perfectly fair.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Closer to 100%

      • Which is why I find myself going online less and less lately. Hooray!

    • by Woldscum ( 1267136 ) on Thursday August 18, 2016 @03:39PM (#52728327)

      And nothing of value was lost

    • by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot@worf . n et> on Thursday August 18, 2016 @04:40PM (#52728719)

      They messed up publishing that Hulk Hogan video.

      No they didn't. They saw Hogan as a lame target - one who does not have a resources to sue them. They have a lot of money on lawyers, so they thought they were immune - just publish away and the well-paid lawyers will keep any lawsuit squashed.

      The miscalculation was that someone who they burned earlier had a lot of money and was looking for a case with merit (because bringing forward his own case would've had negative consequences) and thus was willing to fund Hogan to bring the case forward.

      (This is not unusual - many entities often provide legal aid in cases they deem important - if you think Thiel acted wrong, what do you think of the ACLD, EFF, EPIC, etc., doing the same thing?)

      The big problem was thinking journalists were above the law and as a news organization, they were well above the judicial system and reproach and had complete freedom.

      • Neither are the people who worked for Gawker.

        That Venn diagram doesn't intersect.

      • (This is not unusual - many entities often provide legal aid in cases they deem important - if you think Thiel acted wrong, what do you think of the ACLD, EFF, EPIC, etc., doing the same thing?)

        I can certainly think he's wrong and the EFF is right. For one, I usually agree with/root for the EFF's side in a lawsuit.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Congratulations, you are a hypocrite.

        • I usually agree with/root for the EFF's side in a lawsuit.

          Generally when someone wins it doesn't matter if you think they are wrong, the people that matter thought he's right.

    • They messed up publishing that Hulk Hogan video.

      Apparently their big mistake was crossing Peter Thiel. The Hulk Hogan video was just the instrument of their downfall.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Jezebel...that site is for a bunch of butthurt wannabe fascists posing as feminists. I've never seen so damn much whining about retarded bullshit in my life. Listen, if you want to be a feminist, try going after real issues but not nonsense like "zomg, air conditioning temperatures in offices is mansplaining sexist propaganda"(seriously, that's a real issue among many "feminists"), and be sure to call out any of the ladies who follow you when they start gawking(ha!) at the male Olympic swimmers or the like.

    • Gawker was largely a trash publication and provided little value journalistically.

      What, are you trying to suggest that a video of Hulk Hogan having sex doesn't serve the public interest?

      • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        It really did serve the public interest in high lighting the typical main stream media lie, of who psuedo celebrities really are (tiny dick betrayers) versus the main stream media fabricated image of the product to be sold to a gullible public. So exposing a lie is challenged because it diminishes the profits from a corporate investment lie. So this civil suit and bankruptcy simply do more to highlight the lowlights of main stream media and the ugly little realities behind those massive steroid pumped up c

        • Huh? Terry Boella is an actor who is famous for playing a character named Hulk Hogan. Is Johnny Depp a liar because he's not really a pirate?
          • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

            Huh? Terry Boella is an actor who is famous for playing a character named Hulk Hogan. Is Johnny Depp a liar because he's not really a pirate?

            According to Gawker? Yes. They're also sexists, racist and homophobic and they'd have no problem publishing their nudes if they existed as well. Female stars on the other hand? No no, they wouldn't do that.

          • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

            Well, er yes, all actors are paid professional liars, like duh and the best and most super average (it is not exceptional looking at all, science has proven that, just more average looking than most) looking liars get paid the best. Just because a bunch of liars scammed a whole bunch of money into their enterprise and created a hole religion of celebrity worship around it, does not change what it is. The people best at falsely representing their emotions when telling untruths. Oh my god or is that your god

    • because of the _reason_ they're going under. They got targeted by a billionaire who used the Hogan lawsuit & his incredible wealth the crush one of his journalistic enemies. As a former journalist you should probably be horrified by that.
  • by HBI ( 604924 ) on Thursday August 18, 2016 @03:18PM (#52728135) Journal

    Who'd have thunk that that would ruin you? Not Nick Denton, that's for sure.

    Hope he likes the poor life like the rest of us.

    • I'm sure the $135 million he's getting from Univision will help ease his fall. I've run a few publications and one thing you should have, although I never did because I wasn't a gutter journalist, is insurance to cover you if you get sued.
      • by HBI ( 604924 )

        Sounds like E&O coverage. They'd find a way to avoid paying in this case. That's more than half of what insurance companies spend time doing - finding ways to weasel out of paying for the purchased coverage. I did that for a while and then had to take many showers to clean off the sleaze of manipulating people into screwing themselves out of payment.

        He was also personally liable to the tune of I think $10 million. I also don't think the $135 million would be all his anyway. And they'll try to sipho

        • No doubt, I was just fighting my home owners insurance company today. I appear to have one, but time will tell.
        • Denton is already forced to pay up due to him lying about toe value of his stock to cover the $50mil required to hold off asset seizure. His stock was only worth $30mil.
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Unfortunately people do get away with it all too often. Gawker probably thought they would because Hogan had no money to fight them and their lawyers would ensure whatever he got was less than what they made from the tape.

      Similarly, how many people were prosecuted over the celebrity photos leaks, aka the "fappening"? These are supposed to be the elites, the people that the police actually care about. The reality is that society in general doesn't seem to care much about this sort of thing, often blaming the

      • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

        I am saying its right to break into someones private files and publishing them but the victims are not blameless.

        My mother always told me never write something down you don't want others to read. The same logical applies to taking photos. If these people had not been photoing themselves for the sake of lewd behavior like sexting etc the leaks could not have happened.

        Again I am not saying they did anything ethically wrong, morally perhaps but not really a concern of ours, but they did do something inherent

      • by HBI ( 604924 )

        I am not sure it's a matter of 'not caring'. I think it's a matter of litigation following the money, and there was no pot of gold at the other end of the "Fappening" investigation.

        You can see it too with the dim view that most courts take towards ACLU/EFF type cases. The logic seems to go "this case doesn't matter, since it will have no practical effect, so why am I being forced to decide it?" In reality, it does have a practical impact on governance, but courts tend to view that as dollars and cents.

  • MAybe they'll make Sam Biddle the waterboy now.

  • Karma, dude.
  • So this guy publishes videos of people not only nude but having sex against their wishes (i.e., in many ways similar to rapes them), invades the private sex lives of others by outing their sexual orientation, and generally makes its money by bullying and mocking people, one defendant finally has enough money to defend himself against his army of lawyers, and all that happens to him is the one site files bankruptcy but then gets bought for 135M?

    And here I was thinking that we might finally have something tha

    • by kuzb ( 724081 ) on Thursday August 18, 2016 @05:59PM (#52729239)
      You understand they were sued for something like 150 million right? Gawker has debts, and after all the legal fees and the judgement amount is paid he's going to be lucky if he has enough for a decent lunch. Filing for bankruptcy does not absolve you of debt. It just means that how you pay it all back gets adjudicated by the court. In this case, it's getting paid back by the liquification of his entire company.
      • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

        not absolve you of debt

        Not true the court may absolve all or part of an obligation, especially if its clear you will never have the ability to pay.

        • OP said filing does not absolve you. That is true, Also any absolution usually can happen after the company has no assets left to pay its debt with.
  • "And nothing of value was lost." -- The Cynic
  • Maybe 2016 will be a good year after all :D
  • Gawker was a shit tabloid rag with the worst of intentions. They ignored a court order and were held to account for it, end of story.

  • Breaking: web based media sites are dead.

    Everyone has moved on to AI in-game Pokemon avatars that deliver your news to you in Pokebite sized chunks. Best part is, they never read the comments unless they're part of your Team locally or are your family.

  • According to this article [arstechnica.com], Gawker Media also owns Gizmodo, Deadspin, Jezebel, Lifehacker, Kotaku, and Jalopnik.

    They look safe for now, but I actually like Kotaku and Gizmodo. It's probably really shitty to work at these companies, which had nothing to do with leaking pr0n, but who's employees are still affected by it.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18, 2016 @05:09PM (#52728899)
      Kotaku is indistinguishable from Gawker.com and buzzfeed.com. Fucking garbage.
    • by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <[mashiki] [at] [gmail.com]> on Friday August 19, 2016 @08:29AM (#52731795) Homepage

      They look safe for now, but I actually like Kotaku and Gizmodo. It's probably really shitty to work at these companies, which had nothing to do with leaking pr0n, but who's employees are still affected by it.

      They're just raging hypocrites, [imgur.com] and claim that anyone who doesn't follow their progressive garbage are sexists. While their authors turn around and try to bully, shame, or attack people who refuse to bow down to their bullshit. Fun reminder it was Sam Biddle of Kotaku that cost them $1m-10m in lost revenue [archive.is] for his "bring back bullying" [imgur.com] tweet...during bullying awareness month. And of course after that, they then started whining that the people who cost them that are the persons who are really the fascists.

      • Oh cry me a fucking river about the tweet. It was a "tweet", not an article, and one that was quickly clarified to be sarcastic joke, albeit not a very good one. I'm not going to deny that people that work for this news organization are a bunch of dicks...but this was a total red herring, with nothing to it. You're not talking about leaked secret emails or state dept. documents here.

        Here's a fucking NEWSFLASH for you - people are human beings with opinions, and senses of humor. Gawker media is made of many,

        • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

          You had to pull out salty as your flavor huh? Maybe you should just get up and walk away from the internet for awhile.

          Here's a fucking NEWSFLASH for you - people are human beings with opinions, and senses of humor. Gawker media is made of many, many of these entities, who may or may not all agree with each other.

          They didn't write some elaborate article pontificating on the merits of bullying, as a news organization. One person made an unfunny joke in a whiny tweet, and the #Gamergate crowd apparently had skin thickness measuring in the sub-microns. FFS. Grow up. Everyone involved in this sucks, all around, and are a bunch of fucking crybaby drama queens. I shudder to imagine the epic meltdown when someone fucks up your Taco Bell order.

          Oh they didn't? You should go back and re-read some of their stuff. If you think bullying in any form even joking is such a light hearted topic to simply say people should be bullied because they're calling out your serious ethical misconduct, well you're just a shitty human being like many of the writers for Gawker. One can't forget either the parts where they simply lied. You know muc

          • First off - no - , you made a claim that you utterly failed to follow up with. I've read their response - they still didn't write an article, or take an official stance, defending bullying, which is the impression the hysteria from your camp projects. Other people chimed in about the tweet, but nothing you folks clutch your pearls about holds water. You were basically farming for something - anything - to try and legitimize your group as being some kind of misunderstood victim, due to the term "sexist assho

  • Is it just me? Are all my computers messed up? Am I the only one seeing this happen almost every day? "...as well as the siteÃ(TM)s archives..."

    CLICK "PREVIEW" FOR FUCK'S SAKE!

  • by sciengin ( 4278027 ) on Friday August 19, 2016 @01:05AM (#52730749)

    Calling what Gawker does, journalism, is like calling that evil monster from a horror flick "innocent girl" just because he is wearing her bloody face over his.

    • Seriously. Their tagline was literally "Today's gossip is tomorrow's news". Pretty trashy, and borderline journalism at best.

      That, and their articles are always full of typos and grammatical errors, never mind the poor conclusions and sloppy research. They're not even good writers!

  • So they bought all the sub-gawkers except for the main gawker.com, right?

    When do we get to see Jalopnik TV on our local Univision station? The production values of the average Univision entertainment show combined with Jalopnik's focus on all kinds of cars (low-riders, anyone?) would be an awesome match.

    La Marcha Superior! Starring Señor Jason Torchinsky!

  • Gawker is a tabloid staffed by irresponsible paparazzi cowards with zero journalistic integrity. Big difference.
  • There are a lot of shitty "news-like" sites out there. That is, sites that act like news and have staff that do "reports", but that often ignore any sense of journalistic ethics. OK, to be fair, a what would have once been considered "real" news agencies are the same way.

    One of things about Gawker and its ilk, it's all about the clicks, and the clickbait and controversy. This resulted in a lot of "articles" that were little more than veiled attacks or flaming rhetoric. Sure, it got a lot of comments, but ve

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Working...