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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Techdirt basically did that in the Ayyadurai email case, but still suffered financially.
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.
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.
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...