Tagged: Press Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Geebo 10:01 am on August 23, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , Press, Tom Scocca   

    Gawker writer: Censorship is for sale 

    Gawker writer: Censorship is for sale

    True censorship can only come from the government since it’s the First Amendment that guarantees a free press. However, Gawker writer Tom Scocca makes the case that a free press is threatened by those who can afford to have the press bent to their will.

    In his post entitled ‘Gawker Was Murdered by Gaslight’, Mr. Scocca makes the point that only one person killed Gawker and the man holding the smoking gun is none other than Peter Thiel. Scocca makes great points about Thiel’s personally financed vendetta against Gawker, especially with the infamous Hulk Hogan lawsuit. He points out that without Thiel’s backing the Hogan lawsuit was without merit since federal courts ruled that the publishing of excerpts from Hogan’s sex tape was considered newsworthy and therefore protected speech. It’s also pointed out that media outlets have insurance policies for such lawsuits and Mr. Scocca not only points out that the New York Post settled out of court for publishing pictures of two men they thought were responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings, but also that in previous instances Gawker never had to pay anything close to a million dollars for any such mistakes prior to Mr. Thiel’s revenge by proxy campaign.

    According to Gawker, Thiel just kept throwing money at more lawsuits for anyone who perceived that they may have been wronged by Gawker. He basically bankrupted Gawker in a war of attrition by outspending them all because Gawker outed Thiel as gay, which as salacious as that may sound was also considered newsworthy therefore also protected. After the $140 million judgement was ordered against Gawker they were immediately denied any kind of appeal in court. That sounds a lot like Peter Thiel’s money speaking for the court and since the court is part of the government maybe Gawker’s death is true censorship after all.

    Peter Thiel should not be mistaken as some kind of privacy champion. Instead he should be seen as the public face of a number of entitled billionaires who are buying favorable press and financially crushing any dissension.

     
  • Geebo 10:06 am on August 19, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Press, Univision   

    Gawker: The Final Chapter 

    Gawker: The Final Chapter

    After losing its infamous lawsuit against Hulk Hogan and declaring bankruptcy, Gawker Media was purchased for $135 million. While tech media publisher Ziff Davis was an early suitor, the network of blogs under the Gawker banner were purchased by Spanish language TV network Univision. However, after the purchase was made final, it was announced that Gawker.com itself will be shuttered next week after 14 years of being online. Gawker founder, Nick Denton, announced that Gawker itself was unable to find a buyer while properties like Gizmodo, Jalopnik, Jezebel, Deadspin, Lifehacker and Kotaku were worthwhile to their purchaser.

    While some may celebrate the demise of Gawker it has set a dangerous precedent that if you have enough money you can silence any media that is unfavorable to you. The Hulk Hogan lawsuit, and others, were admittedly funded by Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel after Gawker outed Thiel as gay some years ago.

    If we’re not careful, we could be seeing the start of an era where freedom of the press could be squelched by the super rich elite if the media crosses them.

     
  • Geebo 10:01 am on June 21, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Press   

    What does Facebook’s shareholder vote say about a free press? 

    What does Facebook's shareholder vote say about a free press?

    Peter Thiel demonstrates how he choked the life out of Gawker.

    In a follow-up to yesterday’s post about Facebook’s shareholder meeting, Peter Thiel was reelected to the Facebook board of directors amid the Gawker and Donald Trump controversies. The vote itself really wasn’t much of one since, as TheStreet points out, Mark Zuckerberg controls 60% of Facebook stock which pretty much makes him the benevolent dictator of the Facebook board.

    With Zuckerberg basically giving Thiel a vote of confidence what does that say about Facebook’s stance towards a free press? As BuzzFeed points out, one of Facebook’s mission statements is “to make the world more open and connected.” With Thiel’s reelection it gives the appearance that Facebook wants the open and connected world to be only made in their own image.

    With Facebook being the primary source of news for many people, they wield a mighty big stick when it comes to determining what news people see. With Thiel’s reelection it’s not out of the realm of possibility that Facebook could start limiting exposure to news outlets that are critical of them.

     
  • Geebo 9:15 am on June 20, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Press   

    Will Peter Thiel be ousted from Facebook? 

    Will Peter Thiel be ousted from Facebook?

    Later today the board of directors of Facebook will meet for the annual shareholder’s meeting. One of the items said to be on the agenda is whether or not venture capitalist and Gawker lawsuit backer Peter Thiel will remain on the board.

    According to TheWrap The Writers Guild of America East sent a petition to Facebook stating that Peter Thiel’s presence on the board is too much of a threat to freedom of the press.

    “Facebook is the portal through which so much news, particularly online news, is accessed and even sent out now,” WGAE executive director Lowell Peterson added. “[News outlets] depend on social media like Facebook for their survival, for getting their message out, for getting their stories and videos out.”

    Another point of controversy is that Thiel is a delegate for Donald Trump. This kind of explains why Thiel’s attack lawyers are threatening Gawker with legal action over Donald Trump’s alleged hairpiece. However, could it also mean that with Thiel in Trump’s camp will this start a campaign where media outlets critical of Trump are threatened with legal action?

    So will Facebook take a stand in defense of the press or will they continue to support a legitimate threat to journalism?

     
  • Geebo 11:30 am on June 15, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , Press   

    Is Peter Thiel suing Gawker over Donald Trump’s hair? 

    Is Peter Thiel suing Gawker over Donald Trump's hair?

    From the ridiculous to the sublime.

    Just when you thought the feud between venture capitalist Peter Thiel and Gawker Media couldn’t get anymore strange comes the news that Thiel’s team of legal attack dogs of Harder Mirell & Abrams are threatening more legal action against Gawker over Donald Trump’s hair.

    One of Gawker’s reporters, Ashley Feinberg, has claimed that she has solved the mystery of Donald Trump’s infamous coiffure. In a Gawker blog post she claims that The Donald’s hair is actually an expensive hairpiece produced by a company named Ivari International. Ivari, while being represented by Charles J. Harder, of the above named legal firm, sent a letter to Gawker…

    Thiel’s lawyer-for-hire, Charles J. Harder, sent Gawker a letter on behalf of Ivari International’s owner and namesake, Edward Ivari, in which Harder claims that Feinberg’s story was “false and defamatory,” invaded Ivari’s privacy, intentionally inflicted emotional distress, and committed “tortious interference” with Ivari’s business relations.

    As it currently stands, Thiel backed lawsuits are already draining Gawker of all available capital. How much more money does he think that his paid proxies can bleed from an already drained stone and is Donald Trump’s hair really the hill that he wants to die on?

    In this blogger’s opinion this recent threat of legal action shows not only how petty Thiel has become and not only how much he’s abusing the legal system but also shows how much he’s willing to strong-arm a media outlet into non-existence. What happens when a media giant like the Washington Post or the New York Times reports something about Thiel that he doesn’t like? Will he back lawsuits against them too and if so where does it end? What’s stopping other billionaires from funding lawsuits by proxy against the media? Will they all try to sue the media out of existence? Granted, that’s an extreme scenario that is unlikely to come to pass but how many journalistic voices could fall in the meantime?

     
  • Geebo 9:59 am on June 14, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , Press   

    Gawker Bankruptcy: A defeat for a free press 

    Gawker Bankruptcy: A defeat for a free press

    This past weekend it was announced that Gawker has filed for bankruptcy in the wake of the $140 million settlement awarded to Hulk Hogan in a lawsuit funded by venture capitalist Peter Thiel. However, while Gawker may have lost the battle the war rages on.

    While Gawker has declared bankruptcy to protect itself against creditors it’s not yet officially out of business. Not only is media publishing company Ziff Davis looking to buy Gawker but Gawker is exploring legal options against Peter Thiel to see if his funding of lawsuits against them violated any laws.

    As has been mentioned before on this blog, Peter Thiel’s and Hulk Hogan’s win over Gawker sets a dangerous precedent of billionaires being able to squelch the press if they don’t agree with or even like the content. It’s reminiscent of old gangster movies where a heavy would threaten a store owner. It’s almost like Peter Thiel told Gawker media “You have a nice network here, it would be a shame if something happened to it.”

     
  • Greg Collier 4:09 pm on November 23, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Press, University of Missouri   

    Freedom of the Press is Freedom for the People 

    The press has often been referred to as the Fourth Estate of government, a powerful entity that has long served as the eyes, ears and voice of the public, the watchdog charged with asking tough questions and revealing the truth, no matter how much some might not like it.

    With that said, it should come as no surprise that politicians are traditionally among those who most often battle with the press – especially in an election season. And this season, what with colorful candidates such as Donald Trump in the lineup, the press has frequently taken the blame when news stories put the candidates under a negative spotlight. So far this season, Trump has engaged in public battles with the New York Times, NBC, Fox News, Univision and even the Wall Street Journal – and the election is still almost a year away.

    Despite their battles with the press, politicians do have an understanding that freedom of the press is among the most sacred of rights that Americans have. Politicians may try to control the line of questioning or the focus of the story and even might play favorites among media outlets. But they understand that significance of the First Amendment and the right that the media have in chronicling the events of the day.

    That’s the most disturbing attack against the press this year didn’t actually occur on the campaign trail. Instead, it took place during the midst of an historic event at the University of Missouri. Senior university administrators resigned earlier this year after campus protests raised awareness about a series of racially charged incidents that the university was slow to respond to. The resignations were seen a huge victory for the protesters..

    But when journalists converged on a public area of the campus to chronicle the event, a large group of people blocked members of the press from the self-declared “safe zone” of campus and, in one video that went viral, verbally berated student journalists sent to the scene to cover the event. In particular, a professor was caught on camera trying to force a journalist out of the area, even calling out for “some muscle” to physically remove the journalist.

    In some scenarios, when journalists are chronicling an event where passions run deep and everyday citizens are caught up in the moment, it’s easy to understand that not everyone understands the type of rights that come with the First Amendment. But that should be no excuse for a college professor, a woman who holds multiple degrees and, in a ironic twist, actually teaches classes in communications? She should have known better than to try to physically remove a member of the press from any public event in any public location.

    Sure, it’s easy to understand why people have a lack of trust in the press. In today’s online world of news, the various outlets are all trying to get more clicks than their rivals and use baiting headlines and out-of-context soundbites to lure in more readers. The outlets are accused of having an agenda, of writing slanted stories and using selective information to tell the stories they want. Sometimes, it’s so blatant that it’s hard to defend the press.

    But it’s never an excuse for blatantly dismissing the First Amendment of the Constitution.

    The news media plays an important role in our society and, with the rise of the Internet and video-equipped smartphones, even everyday citizens are taking on the role of journalist. No where does it say in the Constitution that the First Amendment only applies to credentialed reporters and photographers.

    That’s why it’s so important to protect the First Amendment. It doesn’t just protect credentialed journalists. It protects everyone who witnesses and records an event – whether through words, photos or video.

    It’s the job of all of us to make sure we preserve that right.

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel