Earlier this week Gawker lost “thousands of dollars” in advertising after a poorly worded tweet was posted by one of its writers. Sam Biddle, one of the more sarcastic employees among the sarcastic throng at Gawker Media, tweeted out a joke:
Ultimately #GamerGate is reaffirming what we’ve known to be true for decades: nerds should be constantly shamed and degraded into submission
— Sam Biddle (@samfbiddle) October 16, 2014
He immediately followed it with:
Bring Back Bullying
— Sam Biddle (@samfbiddle) October 16, 2014
Naturally, the Twitterverse pounced. While the issue goes into convoluted gamergate territory, it didn’t make Gawker, the intellectual fraternity of the internet that invites people to their parties only to make them buy the booze, look good. Adobe pulled its sponsorship in response to the uproar, which was followed by multiple posts by site editors attempting to explain the situation, apologizing and admitting they “fucked up.”
Was Biddle’s tweet really a joke? Probably. But it’s no secret that Gawker is the bully of the internet. It regularly takes down “weaker” competitors—the textbook definition of bullying. In the high school hallway that is the New York media scene, Gawker Media is the Biff Tannen-type, shoving whoever they want into a locker.
The art behind Gawker’s ridicule is that they make fun of people and media sites without being overtly cruel. While BuzzFeed seems to be their favorite punching bag, The New York Times enjoys a steady stream of bashing, and Gawker writers openly hate direct competitor Vice. Gawker is now long-established, and its snark is often smart, but it still postures like it’s the underdog, a pose that works since its enormous audience essentially looks like better-informed redditors.
Gawker depicts its actions as an internet watchdog role, an upstart taking on the bigger guys. But it really just looks jealous of competitor traffic, despite bringing in around 60 million unique visitors a month.
Look, for example, at its coverage of Shepard Smith. Gawker repeatedly claimed the Fox News anchor was gay despite lacking concrete evidence. Attempting to out someone who doesn’t want to be? That sounds like bullying to me. (David Carr seemed to agree).
Then there’s the case of BuzzFeed’s Benny Johnson. Once it was known the former politics editor plagiarized dozens of stories, Gawker practically celebrated his near-public firing. Johnson was rightfully let go, but the tone and the vitriol aimed at him was overwhelming. Gawker justifies it because Johnson did something wrong, so it can’t be bullying…right?
Ultimately, Gawker benefits by making other writers look stupid. BuzzFeed is desperately trying to become viewed as a credible news source, and Gawker is happy to depict its staffers as a listicle-making trove of idiots.
Gawker, which occasionally reminds readers that it is proudly a tabloid, might slowly put an ends to its cruelty-laced posts. Editorial director Joel Johnson seems to be looking to create a more partnership-friendly environment free of feuds.
“I don’t like feuding or sniping at BuzzFeed,” he told Capital New York.
Not all of Gawker’s writers are bullies. Its vertical Gizmodo is rarely bloodthirsty, and Lifehacker is downright charming. The well-liked Caity Weaver is funny, but never heckles, and she’s arguably the most talented writer on-staff. Others also refrain from the sites’ tormenting tone. But then there’s Deadspin, which openly admits they can say horrible things about anyone in sports.
Gawker employs some of the best writers on the internet. They should harness it, instead of being nasty.
So glad this article was written.
#1 Posted by K Schweizer, CJR on Fri 24 Oct 2014 at 04:00 PM
Nah. Then I would go somewhere else. Where, I don't know. I love them snarky like that.
#2 Posted by Barney23, CJR on Fri 24 Oct 2014 at 04:00 PM
This, and how they managed the whole Hulk Hogan / Jennifer Lawrence nude/sex leaks.
JLaw's leak is NO WAY excusable, BUT so is Hulk Hogan's breach of privacy, no human deserves their privacy to be invaded in such a way.
They publicly made a strong opposition to JLaw's leak (as it should be), BUT in Hogan's case, they tried to make it appear justifiable to not take down the leaked sex tape.
Proof:
data.tumblr.com/28ffcd93e0cbe3578fae7d9f3a496233/tumblr_nbehjvDNfo1sprgm1o1_1280.jpg
Also, they refused to stop linking to the leaked script of Tarantino's 'The Hateful Eight', driving a lot of traffic and attention to it. They claimed that anyone could anyway find it anywhere else, but I truly had a hard time finding it somewhere else, while Gawker had it with immediate access.
And the icing in the cake, was the whole attack at Intel for pulling their ads, getting to say that 'they're run by craven idiots'. Good job Gawker, attacking your own advertisers, that is enough reason for other advertisers to leave immediately rather than staying and risking being called 'craven idiots' and what not by the company they are sponsoring. Also, Intel's president is a woman, Renée James. So, by default is she too a 'craven idiot'? Way to scare women out of tech, Gawker.
#3 Posted by Zeta, CJR on Fri 24 Oct 2014 at 04:07 PM
New York Times
Vice
Buzzfeed
...and they're weaker?
What?
#4 Posted by Matt, CJR on Fri 24 Oct 2014 at 04:33 PM
This is hilarious. Adobe didn't even advertise with Gawker.
#5 Posted by Will, CJR on Fri 24 Oct 2014 at 04:33 PM
"Gamergate" isn't terribly convoluted. Women are being harassed out of videogames under the pretext of "journalistic ethics". That's really all there is to it; the rest is detail.
Unfortunately, without understanding that, you're entirely missing the context for Biddle's tweet and Adobe's actions.
#6 Posted by PSmith, CJR on Fri 24 Oct 2014 at 04:38 PM
Frankly, it's upsetting that CJR completely missed the point on this. Were Sam Biddle's tweets insensitive? Maybe. But do you guys have any grasp of what the #GamerGate losers have done? PSmith said it perfectly — they're using the guise of "ethics in gaming journalism" as an excuse to go after and harrass women involved with the gaming industry. Their childish, misogynistic ways are embarrassing actions for any adult male and frankly do nothing to reverse the stereotype that gamers are "losers" who have zero appeal to women.
#7 Posted by Benny, CJR on Fri 24 Oct 2014 at 04:54 PM
Great article Sarah, Gawker is the blight of the internet, there's nobody they wouldn't unfairly savage with their terrible articles. Fact checking is like cryptonite to them!!!
#8 Posted by David Lee, CJR on Fri 24 Oct 2014 at 05:06 PM
Anti-Gamergaters are harassing women and threatening them and Gamergate serves to protect and offer them a safe space. As usually it the bullies that are crying that they are being bullied and so that gets the bigger story.
It's about time someone called Gawker out on their douchiness.
If you're curious about Gamergate, dig deeper and you'll see what it's about.
Feel free to look here:
http://gamergate.me/
#9 Posted by Paul Abruzzo, CJR on Fri 24 Oct 2014 at 05:23 PM
May I ask HOW EXACTLY could Biddle's tweet have been a joke?
It was targeting a group of people that are widely being attacked and vilified.
This would be like suggesting "bully the muslims" as a joke if said by a group of Islamophobic racists.
It could *conceivably* be a joke, but given the context of actual hatred and vitriol, it is an expression of genuine contempt and hatred.
Remember: this media group and its associates and peers are STILL attacking the *entire* group being targeted in his tweets.
Kinda puts the "it's a joke" excuse to bed. with prejudice.
#10 Posted by DM Gray, CJR on Fri 24 Oct 2014 at 05:36 PM
In response to comment #6 I'd just like to point out that decrying journalistic ethics in the CJR is an interesting choice.
I'd suggest to the author and anyone else interested in ethics in the media to take a good look at the evidence of close personal relationships between games journalists and the people they have been providing coverage of.
Whether its someone writing a positive piece about their landlord or their partner, there are serious issues when this goes undisclosed to the public at large.
I heartily suggest those working at the review take a closer look at the gamergate situation and see what it actually shows about journalistic ethics in the current gaming media rather than accepting a narrative crafted by a mailing list that served to blackball writers and unify coverage across competing titles. I suspect it would make for some exceedingly interesting articles for the review.
#11 Posted by Kevin Farrell, CJR on Fri 24 Oct 2014 at 05:45 PM
Thanks for writing this article, a fair and balanced look at one aspect of the #gamergate controversy.
I think a detailed examination of what actually started this whole thing might be in order as well, namely the accusations of collusion and conflict of interest between certain game developers and journalists, which raise a number of ethical questions about the game industry, journalism and impartiality. Setting aside the more salacious (and admittedly entertaining) aspects of this issue, the real story is about corruption, in my opinion. I believe that this is and has been the primary focus of many if not most of the #gamergate proponents, not bullying and being bullied. While it may be intensely gratifying to see media outlets such as Gawker attempt to bully their (former) advertisers and sponsors, and generally flail around helplessly like a disgruntled infant breaking everything in sight and flinging soiled diapers in the face of all present, there really is much more to this story.
#12 Posted by Christian Vigneri, CJR on Fri 24 Oct 2014 at 06:06 PM
You are the fun (and tabloid journalism) police! You would really not have liked Spy Magazine.
PS: getting a 404 on http://www.cjr.org/author/sarah-grieco/
#13 Posted by Jamshid, CJR on Fri 24 Oct 2014 at 06:24 PM
Nicely said, Sarah. Keep up the good work.
#14 Posted by John Ettorre, CJR on Fri 24 Oct 2014 at 09:42 PM
"Nick Denton’s media empire is an intellectual online fraternity that invites people to their parties only to make them buy the booze."
Um. What? This is the single goofiest thing I've seen in CJR since Ann Friedman stopped putting GIFs in her stuff.
#15 Posted by Weldon Berger, CJR on Fri 24 Oct 2014 at 09:45 PM
Well, no. I would say that Gawker attacks those in power and those doing horrendous things in general. The amount of relative power isn't the point.
Otherwise it is bizarre that this article implicitly supports the whole Gamergate movement, which if you have any sense at all, would recognize as being baldly toxic and hateful. You can go to 4chan's /pol board/, 8chan, or other websites yourself and take it all in.
#16 Posted by Edwin, CJR on Fri 24 Oct 2014 at 10:06 PM
It's a good article, except I question the "poorly worded tweet" description in the first sentence. Try replacing "nerds" with "women" or "blacks". What do you think the response would have been? Would Gawker have any advertisers left at this point? Would we have other writers pass it off as a joke?
This is the whole problem with GamerGate. It's double standards. The game journals had no problems covering sexual allegations against men in the industry, and they faced subsequent harassment. But when it's a woman, all of a sudden they circle their wagons, refuse to report and investigate, censor discussion, and then begin a smear campaign.
Oh, and Gawker owns Kotaku, the game journal site at ground zero of GamerGate. This isn't about defending women from those "misogynist" gamers. It's about defending their business.
#17 Posted by chrimony, CJR on Fri 24 Oct 2014 at 10:22 PM
Human garbage like Jordan Sargent pollute the internet with worthless content thanks to Gawker, it is just so bankrupt at this point. CJR doing at least a little to push back, thanks!
#18 Posted by blythe, CJR on Sat 25 Oct 2014 at 12:13 AM
It's funny people are saying gamergate isn't about ethics when Leigh Alexander was openly bragging about ruining careers before this started, and when the escapist stopped being boycotted the moment they revised their ethics policy to forbid collusion.
Regardless, Gawker has a long history of bullying, and calling their detractors a "hate campaign" doesn't make any of their hate speech acceptable, because hate speech effects all gamers - not just the few who send death threats or the many associated in some capacity with the advertiser boycotts, charity drives (including one for a feminist group that had been smeared by Kotaku) or publicization of collusion allegations through association with the hashtag Gamergate.
We've all dealt with this sort of bullying growing up, we have a hugely disproportionate number of people who developed anxiety disorders from said bullying in our community, and someone who throws around terms like "neuroatypical" as insults and writes insult-filled articles about how gamers are dead reminds me a lot more of the kids beating me up for playing pokemon cards than any activist for justice I've ever met.
#19 Posted by birdboy2000, CJR on Sat 25 Oct 2014 at 12:28 AM
White knights, balding white knights everywhere.
#20 Posted by Miliardo, CJR on Sat 25 Oct 2014 at 02:01 AM
Thank you for the excellent article.
You did neglect to mention the "best" part, when Gawker Editor in Chief Max Read giving him a raise for “making gamers cry”. Max Read, then laughed on Twitter about “f*cking with teens and damaged or neuroatypical people”.
For the uninitiated, that means people who suffer from Autism.
That is the Gawker Media Editor In Chief calling people with autism, “damaged”. I’m sure you’re aware that gaming is a popular safe space for people on the autism spectrum, as it allows fun alone, and in multiplayer, without the stress of dealing with anxiety surrounding typical social interactions.
It’s true that Sam Biddle “apologized”. I use air quotes because I have been bullied. As a nerd and a gamer, I can smell contempt from a mile away and I know an insincere apology when I get one.
In any case, if anyone truly thinks that GamerGate is all about misogny, and anti-feminism, give this HuffPo TV Live Panel a watch: "Strong Women of GamerGate Fight Back". Either these woman are gender traitors, internalized misogynists, too dumb to think for themselves......or there are actual ethical concerns here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtzrUsi6Y1s
#21 Posted by Richard Kern, CJR on Sat 25 Oct 2014 at 03:43 AM
In the case of Quinn, some made the specious leap that Grayson reviewed DepressionQuest at Kotaku....that is incorrect.
He did, however, make it the feature for a piece at Rock Paper Shotgun.
Additionally, he wrote an article on the failure of a Game Jam in which he gave her a great deal of space to talk about her desires to launch a Game Jam of her own. Both the article and the Game Jam website launched the same day. Grayson and Quinn may not have been in a relationship at that time (according to Kotaku....who investigated Kotaku....and found Kotaku not guilty), but they absolutely were friends at the time. No disclosure was made.
Furthermore, the Rebel Game Jam website does not have any dates, judges, or details concerning the event. What it does have, is a way to donate money. That donation link leads not to a separate account, but to Quinn's PERSONAL account.
How she's managing to separate the Game Jam money and her own spending money is beyond me. I guess we just have to trust.
Polygon writer Ben Kuchera has a been supporter of Depression Quest creator Zoe Quinn on Patreon since January 6, 2014. This means that he automatically gives Quinn money on a monthly basis.
Despite this, on March 19, 2014, Ben Kuchera wrote an article for Polygon entitled, "Developer Zoe Quinn offers real-world advice, support for dealing with online harassment," which discusses Quinn's claims that she had been harassed and links to the Depression Quest website.
Kotaku Reviewer Patricia Hernandez reviewed and recommended games by two separate developers with whom she had undisclosed personal relationships with: one was a roommate/tenant relationship, the other was romantic.
Just today I discovered that Joystiq Reviewer Jessica Conditt wrote 4 articles plugging the Kickstarter project of her friend Steve Swink. They are friends on Facebook, and can be found making dinner dates together on Twitter https://archive.today/zeTaJ
None of these relationships were disclosed when the articles were published. Presumably, the journalists didn't know they were violating a professional code of ethics, or they simply did not care.
Either explanation is unacceptable.
So, in short: claims of corruption have NOT been debunked.
#22 Posted by Richard Kern, CJR on Sat 25 Oct 2014 at 03:50 AM
I'd just like to casually remind you lovely people that Gawker made a celebrity stalker app, leaked the Hulk Hogan sex tape, did the "crackstarter" on Rob Ford, and double down on defending all of these things.
"Without being overtly cruel"
*cough*
#23 Posted by LM, CJR on Sat 25 Oct 2014 at 06:37 AM
This is an utterly bizarre article; it claims that bullying occurs when the powerful pick on the weak, and then complains that Gawker goes after some of the most powerful, influential publications in the world. Buzzfeed dwarfs Gawker Media. The New York Times? Really? The New York Times needs defense from "bullying?" What a profoundly juvenile way to view the role of the media. This is pathetic.
#24 Posted by Freddie deBoer, CJR on Sat 25 Oct 2014 at 10:43 AM
You forgot to mention that Gawker is planning to promote Biddle.
http://theralphretort.com/gawker-set-promote-sam-biddle/
That's right. The guy who helped lose them jillions is being rewarded. Perhaps they're hoping to have a pint and wait for this all to blow over.
#25 Posted by SYABM, CJR on Sat 25 Oct 2014 at 12:20 PM
There was also the time Gawker released the sex tape of childhood icon Hulk Hogan, at a time when the guy was on suicide watch. Nevermind the court order telling them not to, apparently leaking smut is okay when it comes to male celebrities.
#26 Posted by Sean, CJR on Sat 25 Oct 2014 at 01:07 PM
I never thought I'd see the day where Gawker media would be defended by people who purport to care about Social Justice for being outed as the enormous assholes and bullies they are.
Some of you children need to take a step back and consider what it is that you are tacitly supporting because you want to demonize people in your silly little pointless internet war. I don't understand how any support, even jokingly, for bullying of anyone can be considered ethical and frankly if my children were spouting off this nonsense I would be mortified that I had raised them to be terrible people, more concerned with inflicting harm on their enemies than sticking up for marginalized people.
Cyberbulling is a real issue and it's victims are overwhelmingly young people who are not equipped to deal with this constant deluge of criticism and derision. Do I need to remind everyone of the girls who have recently committed suicide over cyber bulling?
I have no idea how someone can justify supporting this toxic behavior regardless of how many "points" it gets them back at their schoolyard foes in this dumb internet war.
You should all be ashamed of yourself and the adults that are encouraging you should be strung up.
#27 Posted by Janet, CJR on Sat 25 Oct 2014 at 06:35 PM
Hey, what about the fact that GamerGate is a hate group?
#28 Posted by wait one, CJR on Sat 25 Oct 2014 at 09:27 PM
BIddle's comment was not "probably" a joke. Emails to Biddle's superiors got replies "i fired him.... psych" (no capital I and 4 period ellipsis in original source)
#29 Posted by Audie, CJR on Sat 25 Oct 2014 at 09:29 PM
Gawker is getting it's just desserts, they're crooked to the core. I hope they learn from this, but I doubt their hubris would allow that.
#30 Posted by Bananaboat, CJR on Sat 25 Oct 2014 at 09:58 PM
I think the fact that Gawker happily mocks a website that is largely populated with clinically depressed people (to the point that suicide is one of the most discussed topics on said website) very nicely illustrates what kind of people this company is emplyoing.
And to the people blaming it all on GG: Stop being hypocrites. Even assuming everything Gawker and its cohorts say about GG would be real (which I find doubtful due to the reason mentioned above), this would not call for the statements which the company has made - and certainly not for a Gawker employee vocally describing former advertisers as idiots.
#31 Posted by Ravenier, CJR on Sat 25 Oct 2014 at 10:26 PM
Oh dear Gawker, looks like nobody loves you.
#32 Posted by person1me, CJR on Sat 25 Oct 2014 at 10:53 PM
These comments claiming GamerGate is about harassment is an absolute joke. The very same journalists who are the heart of this controversy are of course going to attempt to assassinate GamerGate's character. They have the media in their back pocket and are portraying a false narrative to shield themselves from any criticism of their corrupt, lying, morally bankrupt ways.
The private email list Gamejournospro (look it up if you're unaware) had a variety of mainstream media outlets in it and no surprises sites such as Vice, The Guardian, New York Times, Washington Post, Slate etc who were in on this list of collusion all gave horribly biased articles claiming the consumer revolt was all about 'harassment' and how this 'vocal minority was too loud'.
No you asswipes, they became loud and were given a voice because you chose to incessantly give them the platform. You deliberately choose to focus and write on only one side receiving harassment and death threats when people from both sides were and you choose to focus on the 'sexism/gaming is anti-feminist' angle because you wanted to. And of course because surprise surprise, our sensationalist loving media would run with it as fast as they could.
'SEXIST GAMERS DRIVING WOMEN OUT OF INDUSTRY'.
Just no, I'm a woman and have been a gamer all my life and I am tired of this horrfically transpararent attempt to push why GamerGate is here aside. This is why people get annoyed with feminism. This is not a gendered issue. This is a journalistic integrity and ethics issue. The discussion of women have no place in this debate.
I find it truly hilarious that people against GamerGate are claiming the ethics is a guise to harass women. Just what? Ask yourself this question, what sounds more likely, a group of journalists desperately trying to cover their backs and slander millions of people in a demographic as all bigots, the very same journalists who have control of the gaming media as well as connections with the mainstream media to pain whatever narrative they like.....or a group of millions of gamers who just hate women and are simply doing it for the kicks of it?
Honestly, how ridiculous. One group has nothing to gain, and another group has everything to lose. One group has no voice and the other group has every media outlet they can find simply telling the world what this consumer revolt is actually about. No no, don't do any research, heaven forbid you actually dare to speak to these monsters. Just believe us! Thankfully as time goes on we are getting more accurate articles stating exactly why the gaming community is upset.
We are fed up of these people pushing their own agenda into our games too. This ties in directly with the journalistic integrity part. It's one thing to want more representation in games for women, no-one is against that. It's another to use your power in the media to give poor reviews to game developers who did not cater to your specific views, who as a result will suffer financially too. This is not acceptable. We have people in the industry actually afraid to speak up on this matter for fear of their career being ruined by this clique of journalists who have too much power. That should be a sign that something is very wrong in the industry to everyone. The people who make the games are scared to voice their own views on this matter to ensure they do not piss off those who can make or break their games in terms of press coverage/exposure and ultimately sales as a result. We've all simply had enough.
The only people who get to decide the direction of the industry are the consumers and the game developers. If some consumers want more representation then you ask the game devs (they do actually listen and read suggestions) or go about entering the industry yourself and make the change you want to see. You do not try to bully and pressure people using your position as a journalist by punishing
#33 Posted by Sarah , CJR on Sun 26 Oct 2014 at 09:53 AM
I disagree with a lot of things mentioned in this article:
1) Fact checking is like NOT like cryptonite to Gawker! Sam Biddle & Natasha Tiku's articles are very well written and not only provide a lot of facts but also have insight.
2) Most other tech publications/blogs such as Business Insider offer poorly written articles devoid of an ounce of insight. Instead they offer listicles if they are not promoting their investors portfolio companies.
3) The tech media is far from honest, and it is run the Silicon Alley/Valley elite and VCs. They use their investments in tech media as a promotional vehicles for their portfolio companies. I'm glad that Valley Wag calls out all their BS. Someone needs too.
I can count numerous great examples of this:
-Tiku's article about Satya Nadella's sexist comments at a recent women's conferece. Or her article about Business Insider's CTO being a tech bro nightmare. http://valleywag.gawker.com/business-insider-ctos-is-your-new-tech-bro-nightmare-1280336916
#34 Posted by NY Entrepreneur, CJR on Sun 26 Oct 2014 at 10:00 AM
games that do not fit in with your very ideologically driven world view. What these groups want is not for people just to make games for everyone and everyone can simply decide which they like best, they want all games to fit their world view. They want to limit creative freedom and censor/blacklist those who do no cater to their whims. Yes, blacklists do exist.
One issue with this article though, why do you suggest the bullying tweet was 'probably' a joke? I've seen Gawker say we simply don't understand it but what exactly is this wider point that's flying over our heads? (little hint, there is none) If I said, 'bring back beating up gays' with no other context and then said it was a joke when people got rightly outraged, would you just believe me? Would you not condemn it? They should not get a pass for saying something like that.
The journalists at the core of this saga have done some really shitty things. They have broken the trust of their consumers, and also the ethics they should follow as journalists as well as attacking/insulting their own readership.
Being called out on being a shitty human being and a terrible professional at your job is not 'misogynistic' or 'harassment' and I frankly find it offensive people attempt to shield and hide behind their gender instead of owning up to their own shortcomings.
Oh and fyi, the GamerGate people have received far worse harassment and threats. A knife sent to someone's house with a message of 'kill yourself'. A syringe sent to a prominent journalist on the side of gamergate with unknown liquid. A lawyer recently left his home because some anti-gamergate people tried to get his house Swatted. Various people have lost their jobs because people decided to doxx them and call their places of employment and say things like 'why are you employing a person who hates women?', But you will never read about those in the media because that would shatter their false narrative.
We want to trust our journalists, we want the discussion of representation and the development of games to be an open discussion, not us being dictated on what is and not okay by this group of nobodies. We want people who make our games to feel free of the burden of having to please to these parasites, we want ethics guidelines and last of all we want to play our games free of being called a sub human, woman hating scum for by the gaming media who are meant to represent and cater to US, the CONSUMERS.
#35 Posted by Sarah, CJR on Sun 26 Oct 2014 at 10:03 AM
Yes, you read correctly, they tried to actually send a SWAT team to a lawyer who is in favor of GamerGate for simply calling out a woman for her hypocritical behavior. You will never read about this in the mainstream media or these gaming sites who become hysterical the moment a woman is sent a threatening tweet ffs.
#36 Posted by Sarah, CJR on Sun 26 Oct 2014 at 10:08 AM
I disagree with a lot of the points made in this article.
1 - Gawker doesn't pick on weak entities or people. It calls out the most influential, powerful people, publications and companies.
2 - Gawker does not have a problem with fact checking - but Business Insider, Mashable and many of the others do.
3. Gawker articles are well written articles with stylem, fact, insight - not listicles like Business Insider and Buzzfeed.
4. Someone needs to police the tech media. The tech media is so full of BS because it is largely controlled by the tech elite who use it as a medium to promote their own interests and portfolio companies in a very biased way. Business Insider is more like a PR tool for Lerer Ventures.
Valley Wag has published some really great articles that bring light to the problems in the tech industry like sexism. I was glad that Natasha Tiku called out Business Insider's former CTO and Satya Nadella for being sexist.
#37 Posted by NY Entrepreneur, CJR on Sun 26 Oct 2014 at 10:28 AM
Sarah, Gawker had nothing to do with a "threat" of SWATTING which was actually a general tweet (about swatting flies) made by a troll account. It wasn't targeted at any individual but people will take things personally if they want to. It was a nonthreat trumpeted by someone who can't bare to have the attention not on him.
Either way, it has absolutely nothing to do with Gawker Media and I find it bewildering that people who use the internet can not spot a troll when the account does everything but where a t-shirt proclaiming his desire to cause chaos and mischief.
#38 Posted by Roxie, CJR on Sun 26 Oct 2014 at 02:44 PM
roxie There is record of the false police report. the swatting has to do with the whole situation
it is related as Gawker owns Kotaku and it is the company being boycotted by gamergate. the target of false police reports is a Gamergate supporter . tt was brought up as a way of showing the kind of people that Gamergate has been dealing with.
I find the troll statement ironic and I will leave it at that
#39 Posted by bill, CJR on Sun 26 Oct 2014 at 05:57 PM
I was a Gawker target three times, when the site took a few infantile, gratuitous pot shots related to a book of mine no one there bothered to read; in one the site went after the book's reviewer. As idiotic as the posts were, I still felt like I was back in fourth grade cringing at what was scrawled under my name in a slam book (dating myself here, big time). Please avoid Gawker --these posts might be entertaining until the day they come for you.
#40 Posted by Gawker survivor, CJR on Mon 27 Oct 2014 at 11:00 AM
yes, i have found the outing ethos very distasteful and indicative of the old AJ Liebling chestnut: freedom of the press belongs to he who owns one. in other words, gawker is the servant of its founding editor, whose interests are antithetical to those of the rest of us.
#41 Posted by purejuice, CJR on Mon 27 Oct 2014 at 03:05 PM
Max Read had gay relations with a staff member, how unethical!
#42 Posted by witherspoon, CJR on Wed 29 Oct 2014 at 12:05 AM