• 141 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by Hailinel (23905 posts) -

So, yeah. Gawker Media is currently trying to gather $200,000 via crowdsourcing. Why? Because they want to pay drug dealers that allegedly have a video depicting the mayor of Toronto smoking crack.

Yes, Gawker, the parent company of Kotaku, wants to perform "investigative journalism" by giving drug dealers a massive cash pay day using crowdsourced money. Regardless of whether or not Rob Ford actually smoked any crack, the fact that Gawker is actually pursuing this is both disgusting and beyond moronic. Who in the actual fuck would agree to give them money for this?

Online
#2 Edited by RE_Player1 (7549 posts) -

Yup Gawker, and everything in the Gawker family of sites like Kotaku, is tabloid trash pure and simple. Disgusting.

#3 Edited by Ramone (2959 posts) -

Haven't they already got $60000? It completely boggles the mind that they would even consider doing this.

#4 Edited by Zeik (2223 posts) -
@hailinel said:
Who in the actual fuck would agree to give them money for this?

I expect way more than any reasonable human being would think.

#5 Posted by Benny (1947 posts) -

@hailinel: This guy doesn't seem to think so.

Think some competing sites will make 'outraged' blog posts to milk this story for all the clicks it's worth? Probably.

#6 Posted by Hailinel (23905 posts) -

@benny said:

@hailinel: This guy doesn't seem to think so.

Think some competing sites will make 'outraged' blog posts to milk this story for all the clicks it's worth? Probably.

I'm fairly certain Alex is being sarcastic.

Online
#7 Edited by AssInAss (2543 posts) -
#8 Posted by believer258 (11640 posts) -

There must be some legal action that can be taken against them... right?

#9 Edited by Everyones_A_Critic (6287 posts) -

If they meet that goal I'd be genuinely surprised. I love seeing politicians get busted doing drugs but not enough to pay money for it.

#10 Edited by Blu3V3nom07 (4160 posts) -

I like this campaign more than the Precursor Games one. And the Penny Arcade one.

#11 Posted by Codeacious (960 posts) -

Fucking seriously? Gawker has to be doing one or more illegal things here. They're paying drug dealers a bunch of money, publicly, and are slandering Rob Ford by even doing this in the first place. And what's to stop the drug dealers, who may not have the video in the first place, from running off with the cash?

Everything about this is completely and utterly fucked.

#12 Edited by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

Would be funny as hell if its a police sting.

#13 Posted by mellotronrules (1172 posts) -

oh, people still get mad at gawker?

they've been a known quantity since even before the iphone scandal. put down the pitchfork, ignore them and move on.

#14 Posted by Hailinel (23905 posts) -

oh, people still get mad at gawker?

they've been a known quantity since even before the iphone scandal. put down the pitchfork, ignore them and move on.

When Gizmodo bought the iPhone, they didn't use crowdsourced money.

Online
#15 Posted by Hunter5024 (5543 posts) -

@codeacious said:

Fucking seriously? Gawker has to be doing one or more illegal things here. They're paying drug dealers a bunch of money, publicly, and are slandering Rob Ford by even doing this in the first place. And what's to stop the drug dealers, who may not have the video in the first place, from running off with the cash?

Everything about this is completely and utterly fucked.

It's not slander if it's true.

#16 Edited by Codeacious (960 posts) -

@hunter5024: Yes, but there's no way to know that right now.

#17 Edited by mellotronrules (1172 posts) -

@hailinel said:

@mellotronrules said:

oh, people still get mad at gawker?

they've been a known quantity since even before the iphone scandal. put down the pitchfork, ignore them and move on.

When Gizmodo bought the iPhone, they didn't use crowdsourced money.

they're passing around a hat. as long as it's legal, who cares where people throw their money. i have no personal investment in gawker, rob ford (despite being a former resident of toronto for 8 years), or indiegogo. so again- who cares?

also- the fact that you felt it necessary to say

"Gawker, the parent company of Kotaku"

betrays your motivations and/or bias. what relevance does kotaku and it's editorial team have to rob ford, crack, or ill-advised-crowd-sourcing? guilty by association?

#18 Posted by Arbie (1449 posts) -

That's not even really investigative journalism. They need a honeytrap and a man in a long cool coat and stuff. Anyway, if people want to throw their money in that direction, that's their business. What would be fun is if they met the goal and then wrote an article on how people are willing to give money to a drug dealer to see a mayor, or any rich fella, be brought down.

#19 Edited by posh (461 posts) -

@mellotronrules said:

oh, people still get mad at gawker?

they've been a known quantity since even before the iphone scandal. put down the pitchfork, ignore them and move on.

why are you trying to be "above" this at all? like hating gawker is old or something. it really isn't an excuse to not condemn them for anything they're doing currently. the more people know about how reprehensible gawker can be the better

#20 Edited by Hunter5024 (5543 posts) -

@codeacious: True, however in the article they claim they've already seen the video. So that means that it wouldn't be slander provided the video exists, which I'm inclined to believe it does. In fact, and I could be wrong here, if the mayor did start a case claiming slander, then I think it would be within the courts power to order that the video be played for the trial. This is Canada though, so laws might be totally different there.

#21 Posted by NegativeCero (2976 posts) -

I think that blog post puts as well as anyone could. This is disgusting and they should be ashamed of themselves, especially if they're justifying it by calling it "journalism"

#22 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

I don't even know what to say. If they've seen the fucking video, just tell people that. Hell, report it to the police, inform the police who has the video, and done. Don't ask for public money to put money into a violent criminal organization just to out some dumb politician for doing cocaine, just so you can get the exclusive on the story.

I mean, Gawker is already basically already a pool of human waste masquerading as actual people already, but man, this is realllll stupid/fucked up.

Online
#23 Edited by mellotronrules (1172 posts) -

@posh said:

@mellotronrules said:

oh, people still get mad at gawker?

they've been a known quantity since even before the iphone scandal. put down the pitchfork, ignore them and move on.

why are you trying to be "above" this at all? like hating gawker is old or something. it really isn't an excuse to not condemn them for anything they're doing currently

fair enough. i'll take my leave from this thread now. i just grow tired of people dismissing massive editorial teams like gawker (do you know HOW MANY WRITERS THEY EMPLOY? some of which are QUITE GOOD!) when tangential (albeit SLEAZY as FUCK) business practices make headlines.

you do realize this would almost be like getting super anti-gamespot when gerstmann-gate went down. that was similarly dodgey-as-hell business practice that was unfairly taken out on many staff. jeff would be the first to remind you of that.

tl;dr- i'm critical of anyone who blanket 'condemns' any media giant. there's always good and bad in a company that's as large and influential as gawker.

#24 Posted by Colourful_Hippie (4330 posts) -

I would donate a $1

#25 Posted by PeasantAbuse (5138 posts) -

"For $150: Signed Canadian Flag. Every $150 donor gets a Canadian flag defiled by Gawker owner Nick Denton's signature."

Hahahaha wow

#26 Edited by posh (461 posts) -

@mellotronrules: i don't think "gawker media" is terrible, i'm referring to gawker.com in my post. i enjoy some deadspin, io9 and kotaku articles now and again but investigative gossip journalism rags as a concept can get kind of gross. gawker strikes me as a more liberal TMZ

#27 Edited by GreggD (4477 posts) -
#28 Edited by mellotronrules (1172 posts) -

@posh said:

gossip journalism rags as a concept can get kind of gross.

i 100% agree. which is rather than rally the villagers, i just ignore them. but thanks for clearing that up. i mean it's attitudes like this

@msavo said:

Yup Gawker, and everything in the Gawker family of sites like Kotaku, is tabloid trash pure and simple. Disgusting.

that i take issue with. everyone's entitled to an opinion- but i start to question myself whenever i catch myself speaking in absolutes.

#29 Posted by McGhee (6094 posts) -

If you're really interested in exposing corruption in government, a politician doing drugs is so far down at the bottom of the list that it is laughable.

#30 Edited by FunkasaurasRex (847 posts) -

@mellotronrules said:

@posh said:

@mellotronrules said:

oh, people still get mad at gawker?

they've been a known quantity since even before the iphone scandal. put down the pitchfork, ignore them and move on.

why are you trying to be "above" this at all? like hating gawker is old or something. it really isn't an excuse to not condemn them for anything they're doing currently

fair enough. i'll take my leave from this thread now. i just grow tired of people dismissing massive editorial teams like gawker (do you know HOW MANY WRITERS THEY EMPLOY? some of which are QUITE GOOD!) when tangential (albeit SLEAZY as FUCK) business practices make headlines.

you do realize this would almost be like getting super anti-gamespot when gerstmann-gate went down. that was similarly dodgey-as-hell business practice that was unfairly taken out on many staff. jeff would be the first to remind you of that.

tl;dr- i'm critical of anyone who blanket 'condemns' any media giant. there's always good and bad.

I sorta agree in that I think the Gawker network engages in this nonsense to fund good, legitimate journalism, which is much more than you can say for most tabloids. Ben Kuchera wrote a pretty good article on the PA report where he talked a bit about that. It could just be my politics betraying me though; I might not be as forgiving if it was one of the big right-wing tabloids doing this kinda thing. Or maybe it's just because I've enjoyed a few too many Jezebel articles.

#31 Edited by Dacnomaniac (440 posts) -
#32 Posted by fiberpay (282 posts) -

What's the problem here? This is just like any freelancer having a story and getting paid for it. Any freelancer could be a drug dealer or user, you don't know. Sure they are asking for the money but like anything if you don't want to support it.........then don't!!

#33 Posted by JJOR64 (18909 posts) -

Wow. Just wow.

Online
#34 Edited by mellotronrules (1172 posts) -
#35 Posted by Hailinel (23905 posts) -

i'll readily admit to that sort of bias- if people want to have a conversation about fox news, i'll readily admit that i can't take anything they espouse seriously. but at the same time- i don't mind that they exist.

I thought you were bowing out of this thread.

Online
#36 Edited by Video_Game_King (36015 posts) -
#37 Posted by dudeglove (7688 posts) -

@fiberpay said:

What's the problem here? This is just like any freelancer having a story and getting paid for it. Any freelancer could be a drug dealer or user, you don't know. Sure they are asking for the money but like anything if you don't want to support it.........then don't!!

Try actually reading the article for context.

http://gawker.com/we-are-raising-200-000-to-buy-and-publish-the-rob-ford-508230073

If you can't be bothered to read (no surprises there) the short version is:

- Some douchebag drug dealers have filmed Toronto mayor Rob Ford smoking crack.

- They want to sell the footage under the pretense of fearing for their personal safety.

- Gawker wants to buy it and broadcast it all over the internet... but don't want to fork out the money.

- Gawker has decided to bait its readers into giving them money to do so

Although you can claim that "it's not entrapment if you're already predisposed to committing the crime", what Gawker is doing is - by seeking to get the money for free - they will end up with a video that will attract hundreds of thousands of people which will rake in thousands of dollars for Gawker in ad revenue. The only effort on Gawker's part has been setting up an indiegogo "crackstarter" (hyuk-yuk-yuk). This is not freelancing.

Should you care? Probably not. Maybe Rob Ford is a corrupt git who has wasted huge sums in bureaucracy and deserves his comeuppance, or maybe his life is in a complete shambles and won't be getting any better any time soon. Either way, Gawker media is attempting to profiteer on it.

#39 Edited by Dalai (6997 posts) -

So should I give my money to drug dealers or Denis Dyack? I'm struggling to make a decision here.

#41 Posted by joshthebear (2700 posts) -

#42 Posted by MiniPato (2721 posts) -

@hailinel said:

@mellotronrules said:

oh, people still get mad at gawker?

they've been a known quantity since even before the iphone scandal. put down the pitchfork, ignore them and move on.

When Gizmodo bought the iPhone, they didn't use crowdsourced money.

they're passing around a hat. as long as it's legal, who cares where people throw their money. i have no personal investment in gawker, rob ford (despite being a former resident of toronto for 8 years), or indiegogo. so again- who cares?

I don't see how something being legal means we shouldn't care. It's legal for whole studios to be shut down and laid off, well I guess we shouldn't care then. Why bother talking about it? Legal doesn't mean right and it certainly doesn't mean it isn't completely fucking stupid and shitty. And this situation is the latter for sure.

We will always talk about stupid people doing stupid shit or stupid people doing shitty, stupid shit, or just plain shit happening to regular folks. It's how we advance as a people. People used to tell stories and fables to pass on life lessons and provide examples on how to live or how not to live. Today, we pass around something more potent than stories, reality. And sadly, this is part of our reality.

#43 Posted by mellotronrules (1172 posts) -

@hailinel said:

I thought you were bowing out of this thread.

haha fair enough. but i'd rather be polite and answer questions when people engaging with me than just get my argument rocks off and then exit entirely.

@minipato said:

I don't see how something being legal means we shouldn't care. It's legal for whole studios to be shut down and laid off, well I guess we shouldn't care then. Why bother talking about it? Legal doesn't mean right and it certainly doesn't mean it isn't completely fucking stupid and shitty. And this situation is the latter for sure.

We will always talk about stupid people doing stupid shit or stupid people doing shitty, stupid shit, or just plain shit happening to regular folks. It's how we advance as a people. People used to tell stories and fables to pass on life lessons and provide examples on how to live or how not to live. Today, we pass around something more potent than stories, reality. And sadly, this is part of our reality.

i agree with your initial statement- but i'm not sure how studios being laid off is morally reprehensible. it sucks, but divisions, departments, and whole companies get liquidated all the time. they might have been run irresponsibly, and made poor decisions- but unless they've broken the law, i'm not sure what you would want to do about it. unless you have grounds for prosecution, you're either getting your blood up for no reason, or you're calling for mob rule.

but regarding your second bit- i'm not sure how defaming a media company or website like gawker (whose practices you disagree with) advances us as a society. this is a company or association whose reason for being is to garner attention, good or bad. wouldn't the best possible course of action be to ignore them? that's a death sentence for a company/website like gawker. much moreso than any amount of sabre-rattling in a video game forum.

#44 Posted by Demoskinos (14562 posts) -

This is the absolute scummiest thing ever. And the way they are pitching it makes it even scummier. Christ I hope Gawker goes down in flames. Along with all the shitty blogs that it runs.

#45 Posted by MiniPato (2721 posts) -

@minipato said:

I don't see how something being legal means we shouldn't care. It's legal for whole studios to be shut down and laid off, well I guess we shouldn't care then. Why bother talking about it? Legal doesn't mean right and it certainly doesn't mean it isn't completely fucking stupid and shitty. And this situation is the latter for sure.

We will always talk about stupid people doing stupid shit or stupid people doing shitty, stupid shit, or just plain shit happening to regular folks. It's how we advance as a people. People used to tell stories and fables to pass on life lessons and provide examples on how to live or how not to live. Today, we pass around something more potent than stories, reality. And sadly, this is part of our reality.

i agree with your initial statement- but i'm not sure how studios being laid off is morally reprehensible. it sucks, but divisions, departments, and whole companies get liquidated all the time. they might have been run irresponsibly, and made poor decisions- but unless they've broken the law, i'm not sure what you would want to do about it. unless you have grounds for prosecution, you're either getting your blood up for no reason, or you're calling for mob rule.

but regarding your second bit- i'm not sure how defaming a media company or website like gawker (whose practices you disagree with) advances us as a society. this is a company or association whose reason for being is to garner attention, good or bad. wouldn't the best possible course of action be to ignore them? that's a death sentence for a company/website like gawker. much moreso than any amount of sabre-rattling in a video game forum.

I never said it was morally reprehensible or worthy or prosecution. I said it was worth caring about and discussing.

I never said the act of defaming a media company advances us as a society. I said the act of sharing and discussing stories does. And you say we should not care about this story, therefore this is not worthy of discussion because it is legal when I think it very much is, irregardless of its legality. It advances us as a people cause it tells us not to give 200000 dollars to fucking drug dealers for a tape of a dude doing drugs.

#46 Edited by ArbitraryWater (11477 posts) -

Well, at least we've established the bottom of the barrel...? No, probably not. This is gross.

Online
#47 Posted by Ezakael (911 posts) -

I don't particularly enjoy getting on the "Fuck humanity" bandwagon but this shit is pretty disgusting.

#48 Posted by RecSpec (3764 posts) -

I think the only reason people should get mad over this is because of the crowdfunding aspect. The rest of it just falls under shitty journalism practice, which won't be going away anytime soon. Want to fight it? Don't give them the exposure.

#49 Posted by chrissedoff (2075 posts) -

I donated to it. This is a good cause because Rob Ford is an asshole and the world needs to know he's a crackhead.

#50 Edited by mellotronrules (1172 posts) -

@minipato said:

I never said it was morally reprehensible or worthy or prosecution. I said it was worth caring about and discussing.

I never said the act of defaming a media company advances us as a society. I said the act of sharing and discussing stories does. And you say we should not care about this story, therefore this is not worthy of discussion because it is legal when I think it very much is, irregardless of its legality. It advances us as a people cause it tells us not to give 200000 dollars to fucking drug dealers for a tape of a dude doing drugs.

do you honestly feel like it's your responsibility to tell people where to spend their money? and do we actually know they're drug dealers? or is it just presumed because they were smoking crack with rob ford (it's an honest question- has this been confirmed)? i guess i'm wondering what the value of 'discussion' is if there isn't a solution proposed- so far we have gawker doing a nearly universally accepted loathsome thing, and here we have people angry about it. my question would then be- what do you propose we do? raise awareness? that will probably lead to more gawker donors than simply ignoring it. make this sort of thing illegal? well sure, but that seems potentially fraught with ambiguity and unintended consequence.