Gawker Media Files for Bankruptcy

Hogan and his sugar daddy's lawsuit is forcing Gawker to file for Ch. 11 and is selling itself.

Link

It's hard to feel sorry for Gawker because the place is a fucking cesspool but it's still crazy to see this rich guy (not Hogan) being able to push around a media company. This probably won't be the last instance of something like this happening but like I said, I don't feel sorry for Gawker. Fuck em'.

P.S. Sorry Patrick, all aboard the YouTube train.

I absolutely hate the implications this has for free media but maybe if you are a journalist don't fucking out people or publish sex tapes against their will?

I think Hogan was in the right seeking justice. The fact that he was bankrolled by a billionaire with a grudge on his shoulder makes this whole case a mess, but should not change the verdict he got.

To be fair, companies file for bankruptcy all the time and then seem to continue afterwards (sometimes under another title, or split into multiple entities). It could be that they are filing for bankruptcy merely to limit the cost of the suit. I know it's apparently for sale, but the number of times a business seems to get in the hands of a friend of the original board-members, and keep going as normal (sometimes even re-hiring the same directors) is frequent enough that I'm not willing to say this is as bad for them as it seems.

@zolroyce: Why would another company engage in the same dirty practices that Gawker was doing if it means risking another huge fucking lawsuit like the one Hogan won. No one is going to take that kind of risk.

hope all the employees working at tangential properties (jalopnik, lifehacker, io9, etc) land on their feet, no matter what ends up happening.

gawker might have accrued bad karma, but i can't find a reason to feel good about the way this went down.

@dixavd: Oh I'm sure some of the subsidiary's will do fine by getting split up and bought but the resulting turbulence may result in some jobs getting lost. At the very least the division of Gawker that deals with the TMZ style sleazy bullshit will either be shuttered or forced to adapt completely different practices as to not bait another lawsuit like this from happening again.

Hell I bet TMZ is probably looking in the mirror right now and making sure they don't piss off the right person with tabloid shit who can then direct their ire back at them in the form of a huge lawsuit. As much as I hate Gawker this case sets a whole new precedent and creates a blurry line on what's reportable or not.

I don't really feel bad. Sure, there are people who could hypothetically lose their jobs but for every action there is a reaction. The action in this case is being a blog (technically multiple blogs) that have been extremely unethical for years and in some cases have committed crimes (Gawker was ordered to take down Hogan's sex tape by a judge and they refused). The fact they would out people just for the "news" is atrocious. Even Kotaku has had a couple of weird posts that they have no one to answer to for.

Them filing for Chapter 11 doesn't ultimately mean they are done but its not great for them either. Even if they did go under they can sell off each individual blog like they have to others in the past (they did run a porn blog for a while if I'm not mistaken).

I agree with this. Hogan and his billionaire friend are scum bags, but that doesn't change the fact that Gawker published a sex tape of somebody against their will. That is not freedom of the press. Gawker wasn't acting like press when they did that, they were acting like a sleazy tabloid, and got what they deserved. Hopefully Kotaku survives this.

So this basically means that @patrickklepek's job is up in the air, along with all those other folks? Kotaku is still a part of the Gawker empire, right?

I mean, fuck Gawker for their shittiness. However, seeing a lot of people out of jobs because of some overlord's shittiness is just terrible every time it happens.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear, I didn't mean their business practice, it's terrible and scummy obviously, but the way everything is laid out as it currently is, the video game site, the tech site, the science site etc. Kotaku is a big name, I think people would want to own that.

@colourful_hippie: Yeah good point. Curious as to how TMZ operates and doesn't incur the wrath of every law firm in the country. I guess in most of their videos they have camera people who make it abundantly clear to the subject that A) you are being filmed and B) I am from TMZ. By merely talking to them you are probably consenting to have that shit broadcast on the internet. In the Hogan case it was a video that was made without consent and released without consent. That's probably why it went so sideways.

My guess is Gawker and maybe a few of its more popular sister sites get bought out by a media conglom. like ZiffDavis or CondeNast. The parent company lays off any senior people who were involved in the decision to publish 'the video', lays down some ground rules about not baiting lawsuits but leaves the sites otherwise unchanged. Gawker and Kotaku are very popular and recognizable so why mess up a perfectly good traffic goldmine.

Kotaku in particular has done some really great work over the past few years polishing up it's reviews and hiring a bunch of really talented people to write insightful and interesting pieces. It'd be sad to see what Kotaku has built disappear just because some hardheaded people at a different site sunk their gossip rag.

@zolroyce: @jakob187: There's a memo going around from ZiffDavis about how much they want a lot of Gawker's divisions, specifically the gaming (Kotaku), tech, and lifestyle sites.

@jakob187: Patrick bought a house like two days ago based on his Twitter feed. I can't imagine he would have done that if he wasn't reasonably sure he'll either keep this job or has some new job in line. I mean it's been known for months Gawker would likely have to file for bankruptcy just to find the capitol to appeal this ruling.

@jakob187:

Well they probably take shit down when a court orders them to take it down for one thing.

Good riddance.

yeah it was them refusing to take it down, is what really made it this bad. If they took it down when ordered this would quietly went away, and cost them a lot less money.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees.

That's all.

RIP Dead Wrestler of the Week column, other than that hurray.

WHERE YOU WERE YOU WHEN THE HULKSTER DID A LEG DROP ON GAWKER INFRONT OF ALL THE HULKAMANIACS, BROTHER????

I get your point but if the implications end up being "don't fucking out people or publish sex tapes against their will under the guise of journalism" then maybe I like the implications.

Gawker has always promoted the type of writing that I just do not enjoy, so I'd say good riddance but from my desk, I said good riddance a long time ago.

Today is a great day.

Hope Patrick lands on his feet and Gawker dies horribly.

@zolroyce: they're filing for Chapter 11 - which basically allows for a rehab period and the business can continue to operate. They've also begun to entertain offers to buy, which it looks like Ziff Davis is jumping on.

Twitter Moments Page

Matte Pearce Summarizes Chapter 11

Forbes Reporter cites Press Release regarding Gawker/Ziff

To echo some sentiments here, it sucks when there's a possibility people will lose their jobs - never a good thing. Gawker and a decent chunk of their sites are pretty awful, sure, but there are the good ones. I never frequented Kotaku, rather opted to read things from Totilo, Schreier, and Klepek from time to time as I tend to stick to the people I like. No doubt these folks will likely either find new homes, or new ventures but it's still not a fun message to receive even the possibility of happening.

Kotaku is a powerful enough name within media to weather the storm. I mean, just according to Alexa rankings (902 compared to Giant Bomb's +3000) they have immense potential for prospective buyers.

The amount of people casually cheering on some Silicon Valley billionaire using his wealth to destroy a media publication based purely on personal revenge gives you a pretty good of the emotional maturity of the general video game playing audience. Gawker did plenty of good work to go along with their more tabloid and scummy practices and even if they didn't, you have to be seriously deluded not see the horrible implications that this has other publications.

Even more ridiculous when I have to read Brietbart and GamerGate types pretend to care about Gawker outting someone as if they would even give one iota of a shit if it wasn't personally beneficial to them.

So happy to see this and I hope it takes Kotaku's click-bait garbage down with it.

@milkman: The implication it has on other publications is that they can't publish what is basically revenge porn.

@milkman: Nah this is a glorious occasion. Going out with a couple buddies tonight and we are going to drink to the downfall of Gawker.

@rainy_david: no, actually it's not. the implication is that any billionaire with enough money is going to try to come after a media publication that they perceive to have defamed or slandered them whether they are justified or not. whether the court finds them guilty or not is pretty meaningless because unless you're a giant corporation like Gawker, the cost of even going to court is going to be enough to sink your company or at least be a huge deterrent for any journalism outfit to publish anything that can potentially piss off some bored suit.

@milkman: I'd argue it was justified with what Gawker did to him. This is not some slippery slope effect and all of a sudden legitimate publications will be destroyed for disagreeing with powerful figures. This Gawker case is not a hill you should die on.

@milkman: you can't really argue that because they did some good things along with the awful garbage they spewed that things even out. They claimed to have journalistic standards and integrity while consistently demonstrating the opposite. They can't get pissed or whine when someone does something bad to them but then claim it's freedom of speech to put up a sex tape, then on top of that act like it's a hill to die on from an ethics and moral standpoint.

The fact of the matter is regarding your reply to rainy_david that yes, it's shitty that with enough money, one person can ruin a company - but Thiel was looking for something to bring Gawker down, and they did it to themselves. Without the Hogan fiasco, which they published, ran, and stood by of their own volition, they would have been fine and he would've continued to try to find breadcrumbs.

Look at it from the business sense too - Total asset valued at $50-$100mm and they were claiming liabilities between $50mm and $500mm - 500 million in liabilities is outrageous for a company that claims ~$50 million/year in revenue. At best they're still sitting on top of $400,000,000 in liabilities, with about $255 million of that being in damages to Hogan alone, not to mention court costs and lawyers fees this definitely didn't help matters. The moral of the story is that if you do make your living at least partially off of outing or exposing people, cover your ass and make sure your stories are true, cited, and actually fall under the first amendment.

@re_player1: did to whom? Thiel or Hogan? Nothing happened to Hogan because of the sex tape, what caused him to lose his job was the racist rant he went on, which Gawker never published. That was published by the National Enquirer. If you're talking about Thiel, if he was justified to go after Gawker, he would have filed a lawsuit when the story about him was published, not bankrolled a completely unrelated case years later. But he knew he couldn't win that because there were no actual damages caused by the story outting him because it's not the 1950s.

I don't think anyone needs to step in and try to defend Gawkers actions but it's a little fucked up to celebrate this. That's a huge network with a lot of people who are likely to have very uncertain immediate futures.

@milkman: Most defamed or slandered individuals would have no recourse due to the very same court costs you just mentioned. Even Hulk Hogan didn't have the finances needed. In this case Gawker pissed off one of the very few people who was actually able to fight back. The court reached a verdict without anyone even knowing that "some billionaire" was backing it.

@milkman: So you are ok with publications outing people? I'm not talking about the legality of outing someone or possible perceived damages that may cause but personally are you ok with the practice of going through someone's life and outing them to the world?

@joe_mccallister: this argument would make more sense if Gawker had published lies about someone. the stories that Gawker ran about Hogan and Thiel were true, were cited and did fall under the First Amendment. Gawker lost a jury trial and filed an appeal that they will likely (or would have likely) win. If the trial does continue and they do win that appeal, what exactly is your justification for them filing for bankruptcy if the courts find that they in fact did nothing wrong?

@jmdoane:yeah, that's exactly my point. Any CEO or venture capitalist can go after a media publication, he's not one of the very few people. there are tons of people out there with a lot of money that would love to be able to shut certain media publications up. I don't see what the court reaching a verdict has to do with anything (which is still under appeal, for the record), the case wouldn't have happened without Thiel.

What I learned through all of things that people do not hate Gawker, they are told to hate Gawker.

@re_player1: generally, no unless that person has a history of some sort discrimination against LGBT people. but it really doesn't matter, unless you can prove that you being outted hurt you personally or professionally (Thiel couldn't), there's no legal justification for going after the media publication that did. which is why Thiel went through all these backdoor methods.

and by the way, I just want to point out if you actually read the story outting Thiel, it is not vindictive or even negative in anyway. the article is actually celebrating Thiel for being gay man in a extremely straight male dominated area of business. I'm sure people will say that doesn't change anything but people make it seem like Gawker was attacking Thiel or something when it was always the opposite.

@milkman: I never said they slandered - but they reported and published what they call "news about prominent figures" that falls under the first amendment. The court disagreed. The Hogan tape wasn't news in the least bit, seriously. They're trying to push this idea that publishing a sex tape about someone that we see in headlines is news, and therefore first amendment protected - when in reality I think that's a gross overstatement, a stretch, and pretty awful in general. The thing is they then turn around and lose their shit about nude leaks of other celebrities.

If they do go to trial and win their appeal it doesn't matter does it? Why would they file for bankruptcy if they were certain that they could win an appeal? What they're actually doing here is soliciting offers for rehabilitation of the company, so if Ziff comes in and ponies up $100 million, and can steer Gawker back toward a better P&L then it won't matter in the long run WHY they declared bankruptcy, but the stories certainly won't read as "Gawker founders save the day" - it'll be a story about how Ziff came in and course corrected a wayward company.

In the end if the courts find that putting out a sex tape of someone famous is protected under the first amendment I'm way more concerned about what kind of justice that really is because then we have to define what a celebrity is, and when is it ok for your sex tape to get out?

Edit: You're definitely right about the Thiel story - it doesn't have any vitriol or aggressive tone - I think the line is "Peter Thiel is gay people, deal with it." which I don't personally see as a big deal but remember that's 14 years ago that story came out, when we were in a different spot with homosexuality and acceptance thereof in the states. I think Thiel's angle was that it hurt those around him more, and he saw the future of what could happen (and kind of did) with Gawker being able to publish things that weren't accepted common knowledge.

@drdarkstryfe: Wow, that is actually a pretty fitting assessment in the context of this mess. Generally leftist publication that has not made many friends due to their substantial reporting on all sorts of topics gets targeted by crazy billionaire. Alt right people rejoice at their misfortune supposedly believing justice has been brought to Gawker and the people they have harmed over the years, unsurprisingly forgetting all of the fantastic news stories they have broken as well or dismissing them outright. At this ppint I am just awaiting @dudeglove's write up on the main thread to see what he has to say.

For the record I want to make sure I'm not coming across as a dick - I just disagree with you @milkman

@joe_mccallister: the entirely of the internet's existence kind of disproves the whole "sex tapes aren't news" thing. was the Pamela Anderson sex tape not news when it came out? Paris Hilton? Kim Kardashian? these were all huge news stories. yeah, it's not exactly hard news but tabloid news is still news. the fact of the matter is, whether people like it or not, Hulk Hogan is a public figure and his sex life is newsworthy. it's the same as if a Donald Trump sex tape leaked tomorrow, you think that wouldn't be news? I get that people don't feel morally good about it and sex tapes are a hard thing to defend but for the greater good of freedom of the press, it's a trade off I'm willing to make.

12 weird tricks to settle your debt into one monthly payment.

Difference is that they knew they were making a sex tape then cut a deal with companies to publish said tapes. Hogan allegedly wasnt aware he was being taped. Thats the invasion of privacy here.