hey gawker dudes. what the fuck is wrong with you?

i think it's pretty clear that the publication of hogan sex footage aligns completely w/ gawker's ethos. it's not that having done a bad thing, that one bad thing should veto their entire output, but that this particular bad thing is symptomatic of an ideology that produces loads of bad things.

i do think gawkers ethos of correcting media respectability politics is a valuable idea, as to whether is actually plays out well on the whole is imo a pretty complicated question

this ethos has always been a part of gawker, and predates any afaik, ilx participation in the website

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-avakrRUaU

but like what is loads, is it a higher % than other orgs or is it just of a less socially acceptable type, does is serve a purpose, how much of what they do is good xp

i don't think that being concerned about ppl's privacy - even celebrities (tho to a smaller extent than civilians) - is a good critique of the media. and i don't think squeamishness about publishing someone's sex tape against their wishes is a sign of media respectability. it could be that gawker does other things that are worthwhile in terms of critiquing mainstream media, but this isn't one of those things imo.

Hopefully the Gawker corrective will lead to respectable media outlets mining comments sections for stories.

feel like publishing the sex tape is bad and creepy but also most of the proam media critics itt are wholesale consumers of media respectability politics and are basically dramatically ripping back the curtain to reveal gawkers public mission statement

― lag∞n, Sunday, July 12, 2015 8:39 AM

nabisco mode unlocked

like gawker's mission (if it does exist) against imperialism and capitalist exploitation is not the same as its mission to publish titillating stories about celebrities. it's bizarre to conflate the two as if the same animating principle of honesty + transparency is behind both and you can't have one w/out the other.

seems the idea gawker is operating off of is less abt media critique although obvs they do that too but rather taking that media critique and building ones publication standards around it, the idea being that the media as a whole is keeping info from the public based on cultural norms that are way too uh normalized across the industry, creating a distorted landscape this is to no small extent about wanting to be seen as respectable authorities xp

so rather than rely on yr own culturally mediate disgression u just publish everything lol

professionals want to be seen as respectable authorities and the way they do that is by adopting standards in their profession that track w/ what the general culture sees as appropriate behavior. there might be doctors that are frustrated w/ various ways that their industry impedes their abilities to, idk, use untested medication on patients, give assisted suicide, disclose hipaa information, etc, and in places where we may agree w/ a particular difference w/ the standards we may agree or disagree w/ a particular dr's decision to fight against them. but gawker takes a host of very valuable standards - don't out people w/out their permission, don't post naked pictures of them without permission, don't run stories w/out having them confirmed by a reliable source (or two!), don't violate the privacy of civilians without a strong public interest, etc - and tosses them out and you want us to talk about whether in a general sense challenging media standards is a good thing. like, no, it isn't. maybe some standards are worth challenging but it's not a totally failed institution. it's a good thing that the NYT doesn't touch most of the stories gawker does. the media would be infinitely poorer if outlets adopted gawker's standards.

why do we have to pick? isn't it a better landscape when the times is the times and gawker is gawker

don't out people w/out their permission, don't post naked pictures of them without permission, don't run stories w/out having them confirmed by a reliable source (or two!), don't violate the privacy of civilians without a strong public interest, etc

the thing is Mordy's right. those are good standards unless there's a greater-good argument - if one had needed a Nixon sex tape to break Watergate open, say. most good-practices journalism stuff is pretty glaringly obvious. whether it's illegal or not, separate question, I suspect it's protected speech, but "I'm allowed to do this" is a poor defense of shitty behavior

mordy otm

and you want us to talk about whether in a general sense challenging media standards is a good thing. like, no, it isn't.

― Mordy, Sunday, July 12, 2015 12:28 PM (58 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

okkkkkkkk

our media has actually failed the country and indeed the entire world repeatedly extremely badly in a very predicable way

i agree that the hulkster suit is a clash of cultures. rich lunkhead bro culture vs rich white dudes from academia culture.

and of course when you make an assumption that standards do not need challenging that is by default pro status quo

it is a not interested in learning position

This all looks v strange from the uk where the post-leveson outcome that creeps can go on rooting thru sienna millers trash is part of an overall victory for precisely this damaging status quo

the comparison to standards of medical science is extremely absurd

but gawker takes a host of very valuable standards - don't out people w/out their permission, don't post naked pictures of them without permission, don't run stories w/out having them confirmed by a reliable source (or two!), don't violate the privacy of civilians without a strong public interest, etc

― Mordy, Sunday, July 12, 2015 12:28 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

always be suspicious of arguments that are interested in rules over principals

like I'm sure that after this period of bold media self-examination the only difference will be more gawking xxp

but gawker takes a host of very valuable standards - don't out people w/out their permission, don't post naked pictures of them without permission, don't run stories w/out having them confirmed by a reliable source (or two!), don't violate the privacy of civilians without a strong public interest, etc

― Mordy, Sunday, July 12, 2015 12:28 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

always be suspicious of arguments that are interested in rules over principals

― lag∞n, Sunday, July 12, 2015 6:38 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

assuming you meant "principle", isn't mordy saying they're v valuable as a result of underlying principles & not arbitrarily just cause they're the rules?

looks like a list of rules to me

oh damn you're right

youll have to point me to where he articulates the "principles" that tie them together

https://estreetfilmsociety.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/citizen-kane-declaration-of-principles.jpg

xp he hasn't, which must mean there aren't any! yay for good faith argument boo to mordy or donny don't as I now call him

it'd be funny if this thread succeeded in getting someone to either like gawker who hadn't or get someone who works for gawker (or wants to) to not

(or wants to) to not

i'm sure there are plenty of these already

because of this thread though?

"These will be kept."

xp he hasn't, which must mean there aren't any! yay for good faith argument boo to mordy or donny don't as I now call him

― the story of ilm: an ottyssey (wins), Sunday, July 12, 2015 1:51 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the fact that this post contains a complaint abt good faith argumentation is frankly outragous

:-)

well I can't speak for mordy but I give him the BOD that there is a reason he calls them "very valuable", even if the underlying principle is just "don't be a shit"

like I say tho I have a difft angle on this cause over here it is not at all impossible to imagine a media that protects those in power AND publishes scuzzy telephoto lens violations of people you've heard of

idk i feel like its generally pretty telling whether ppl choose to talk abt rules or principles, and dont be a shit is way too broad/subjective to be meaningful, its like half a step from make good stuff

the thing is Mordy's right. those are good standards unless there's a greater-good argument - if one had needed a Nixon sex tape to break Watergate open, say. most good-practices journalism stuff is pretty glaringly obvious. whether it's illegal or not, separate question, I suspect it's protected speech, but "I'm allowed to do this" is a poor defense of shitty behavior

― Joan Crawford Loves Chachi, Sunday, 12 July 2015 17:00 (56 minutes ago) Permalink

Lol wat

like I say tho I have a difft angle on this cause over here it is not at all impossible to imagine a media that protects those in power AND publishes scuzzy telephoto lens violations of people you've heard of

― the story of ilm: an ottyssey (wins), Sunday, July 12, 2015 1:01 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

So like tmz? http://defamer.gawker.com/tmz-blackmailed-justin-bieber-with-racist-video-for-yea-1586403133

professionals want to be seen as respectable authorities and the way they do that is by adopting standards in their profession that track w/ what the general culture sees as appropriate behavior. there might be doctors that are frustrated w/ various ways that their industry impedes their abilities to, idk, use untested medication on patients, give assisted suicide, disclose hipaa information, etc, and in places where we may agree w/ a particular difference w/ the standards we may agree or disagree w/ a particular dr's decision to fight against them. but gawker takes a host of very valuable standards - don't out people w/out their permission, don't post naked pictures of them without permission, don't run stories w/out having them confirmed by a reliable source (or two!), don't violate the privacy of civilians without a strong public interest, etc - and tosses them out and you want us to talk about whether in a general sense challenging media standards is a good thing. like, no, it isn't. maybe some standards are worth challenging but it's not a totally failed institution. it's a good thing that the NYT doesn't touch most of the stories gawker does. the media would be infinitely poorer if outlets adopted gawker's standards.

there are a lot of assumptions being made here that don't track with my experience or understanding at all. i dont think its useful to think of journalists as "professionals," for one thing--the comparison with doctors is telling: journalists do not swear oaths; they are not required to attend journalism school; most importantly they are not legally required to receive state credentials to perform their jobs--but i also would dispute that most journalists want to be "respectable authorities" or are looking to "adopt standards." (the saw is: any journalist with more than one person at her funeral failed at her job.)

and, well, the media would be infinitely poorer if all outlets adopted the new york times' standards. the healthiest press is a diverse one.

the thing is Mordy's right. those are good standards unless there's a greater-good argument - if one had needed a Nixon sex tape to break Watergate open, say. most good-practices journalism stuff is pretty glaringly obvious. whether it's illegal or not, separate question, I suspect it's protected speech, but "I'm allowed to do this" is a poor defense of shitty behavior

― Joan Crawford Loves Chachi, Sunday, July 12, 2015 1:00 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

it is pretty glaringly obvious. the law has an expansive understanding of what "greater good" means in the context of speech. as nearly every first-amendment lawyer you'll talk to will tell you, gawker will win this lawsuit on appeal (just as it has nearly every appeal it has made already). if hogan had not successfully drawn the judge he has, it would never have gotten this far.

i guess i can see that the fact that reporters undertake as their jobs a kind of professionalized rudeness makes people very uncomfortable. but burying that work under a set of rules about what's allowed so that people feel more comfortable with it is in my opinion a very bad idea. my pet theory is that gamergate obsessively focuses on journalism as an institution because the engineer/gaming community is so rules-focused that the idea of an actual job where people are able to skirt rules of socialization and not only "get away with it" but be rewarded for it seems absurd and sinister

man that just sounds so weird coming from you in re: the matter in question

(as I said in my post, I suspect this is protected speech, I'm less interested in it from a legal perspective than a why-would-you-do-that one)

even if it would be inadvisable to formalize journalistic standards due to the invasive nature of the profession and the need for journalists to not feel like their hands are tied all the time, i think it still makes sense to question to actions of media organizations and look at, in individual cases, whether the public interest was served or not. you're right that journalism is more anarchic than the medical profession, but the reason it functions that way is that there would be a public cost to holding journalists to overly strict standards. so in cases where the public good isn't served -- a standard you can't define legally as it's totally subjective -- there is no reason for people to feel like they have to tolerate the transgressions of journalists. they're not like a sacred guild we need to trust implicitly

sorry xp to max

oh sure. im not asking that people hold their tongues. a world where all people like and respect all journalists is one in which journalists are probably not doing their jobs!

(as I said in my post, I suspect this is protected speech, I'm less interested in it from a legal perspective than a why-would-you-do-that one)

oh i see. i mean its the same answer: the speech is protected because its newsworthy. gawker would publish the speech because its newsworthy.

This slope sure seems slippery.

http://cdn.indiewire.com/dims4/INDIEWIRE/88c326d/2147483647/thumbnail/680x478/quality/75/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fd1oi7t5trwfj5d.cloudfront.net%2Ff9%2Fe5%2F3081c061409fa2746763d3d5279a%2Fnightcrawler-jake-gyllenhaal-7.jpg