
Fighting ‘the Gawker effect’ in the wake of Weinstein - miraj
https://www.cjr.org/first_person/amazon-roy-price.php
======
mc32
I don't see the comparison. First the NYT apparently killed a story[1] which
exposed Weinstein way before the Gawker case.

Two, the Gawker case was about the frivolous publishing of personal sex videos
with no other redeeming value.

If you have info on a perv like Weinstein, and others in Hollywood, it's not
comparable to the Gawker case in any way. You have a newsworthy story and you
have lots of corroborating subjects.

It's about time the predatory and infamous "casting couch" comes to its demise
and actors and actresses are evaluated on things beside their willingness to
submit their bodies to the executive producers, casting directors and others.

[1][https://pagesix.com/2017/10/09/new-york-times-killed-
weinste...](https://pagesix.com/2017/10/09/new-york-times-killed-weinstein-
sexual-misconduct-story-in-2004/)

------
Simulacra
This is a really well-written and fascinating article, but I think the author
is stretching the term "gawker effect." In fact it probably should have a
different terminology. On the one hand, journalist say they are frayed to
publish something out of fear that a wealthy person will sue them. However, I
think the real lesson from Gawker, was that publications finally excepted, or
appreciated more, what is real news, and what is gossip. The Gawker Result is
that journalism has gotten better, and is less prone to publishing gossip, or
the happenings of someone's private life, and less it has actual news value.

------
another35
Unfortunately nothing jaw-dropping to this story.

Many women in any industry from movie production companies to simple
restaurants, are being sexually abused every day. You could call it the
industry standard, a perk coming with being at the top of any hierarchy where
one has power over the other.

You'll need to eliminate hierarchy, money and power if you want to end this.
And that is nearly impossible.

------
ImSkeptical
I don't understand the Gawker effect here. Gawker published parts of a sex
tape between consenting adults, then ignored a judge's order to take it down.
That doesn't seem anything like a real reporter writing a real story about
sexual harassment.

If I were a news outlet, I'd publish a vetted credible story if it has real
news value, defend it with a minimum of legal power, and if a judge ordered me
to take it down, I would. This way, the story goes out and we avoid the legal
death blow Gawker begged for.

~~~
CodeWriter23
That’s only half of the “Gawker Effect”. The other half is Peter Thiel was
pissed off that Gawker outed him as gay, then funded Hulk Hogan’s case to sue
Gawker out of existence, because Thiel couldn’t sue them for publishing the
truth about his sexuality.

I didn’t shed a tear about Gawker’s demise. But the fact that a rich man can
sue a media outlet into oblivion, and create an ecosystem of fear and
intimidation journalists and sources now have to navigate as a result, is what
Masters is speaking of when she uses the term.

~~~
ImSkeptical
The only reason that Thiel could successfully sue them for such damages is
that they did the whole "Publish a sex tape and refuse a judge's order" thing.
Without that, or a similar action, then it's not clear that Thiel would have
been able to destroy them.

If anything, the most problematic part of the story for me, is that Hulk Hogan
had to get the backing of a billionaire in order to carry this case to
completion. Hogan is a (or was a) celebrity, likely a millionaire, and he
couldn't use our court system to press a suite when he had a real case. We
seem to be on the exact other extreme of what you are afraid of - typical
people, even 1% types, or "Single digit millionaires" as I've heard Thiel say,
can't afford to use our legal system. Gawker and the ilk are free from legal
challenge except in the case of litigious billionaires looking for revenge.

