dagblog - Comments for "How Things Work (The End of Gawker)"

More like LeBeau - you know

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 27 Aug 2016 21:24:49 +0000

In reply to Hogan's Heros? Didn't that

More like LeBeau - you know them Frenchies...

Hogan's Heros? Didn't that

CVille Dem — Thu, 25 Aug 2016 23:31:53 +0000

In reply to There was very little "great

Hogan's Heros? Didn't that guy get stabbed to death in some kind of an orgy?

There was very little "great

Michael Maiello — Thu, 25 Aug 2016 22:41:33 +0000

In reply to I never read gawker but I've

There was very little "great journalism," I'll admit, but that's true of any publication with the exception of Dag.

I think Gawker's attitude was useful in an increasingly hierarchical world. Heck, I think Gawker's attitude is essential in a world that increasingly claims to be flat but is, more and more, ruled from the top.

Hogan's privacy was violated, I agree.

The result of it is not good for the rest of us, though. Given that Hogan will never see but a fraction of his promised $150 million, I'd say the end here is lose-lose for everyone but Peter Thiel and when Thiel wins, the rest of us lose.

I never read gawker but I've

ocean-kat — Thu, 25 Aug 2016 20:07:26 +0000

In reply to How Things Work (The End of Gawker)

I never read gawker but I've been following the story. Many people have posted their favorite articles and I've checked out some of them. A mere fraction but I have yet too see any that could be considered a valuable journalistic contribution.

You know, Thiel didn't take down gawker. All he did was put up sufficient money so Hogan could get his day in court. If he had lost gawker would have been mostly unharmed. But he won, gawker was found to have invaded his privacy, and I agree with that decision. It's hard for me to see this as a cautionary tale to news sites that aren't sleezy and scurrilous as gawker.