What The Gawker Bankruptcy Means For Media Freedom In America

Regardless of how you feel about Gawker and the types of stories they do, whether you loathe them, love them or just don't care, if you care about media freedom in America you should care about Gawker going bankrupt. 

Actually, you should be terrified at Gawker's bankruptcy and what it means going foward. Because regardless of how anybody feels about Gawker and their type of journalism, it is a type of journalism. And it is being silenced by a billionaire who was secretly bankrolling lawsuits against it.

That doesn't sound like something that should or could happen in American media. That sounds like something that could happen in Russia, Turkey or China, where the term "media freedom" is defined by those in powerful positions, by The State or a Great Firewall. 

How did we get here? 

Gawker has long made its name and achieved high traffic with hit pieces. But it was one of those hit pieces -- actually two -- that has proven to be Gawker's ultimate undoing, at least for now as Gawker Founder Nick Denton remains defiant.

OK.

In the crosshairs of those hit pieces were former professional wrestler and current recovering racist Terry Bollea, otherwise known as Hulk Hogan, and billionaire PayPal founder Peter Thiel.

A billionaire and wrestler had something in common powerful enough for them to join forces against a common enemy. They were targeted and exposed by Gawker. Hogan with his sex tape and Thiel being "outed" as gay, or as Gawker headlined it back in 2007 "Peter Thiel is totally gay, people."

Can you blame Thiel for wanting to take down Gawker? No, not really. What's the point of "outing" somebody as gay when many in Silicon Valley at the time already knew it? But there's a difference between wanting to take down a publisher because of a personal attack and actually being able to do so by funding lawsuits against them.

Both the Hogan and Thiel stories are a part of the Gawker lexicon, their cultivation of "journalism" appearing to indiscriminately target, expose and publish scandalous stories about people whether it is appropriate to do so or not. Taking the side of a male escort blackmailing his lover is a prime example of a serious lack of editorial or journalistic standards when compared to "serious" publications like the New York Times or Washington Post.

Gawker is more in line with TMZ, even if TMZ is purely celebrity focused. There's really not much difference between the two publishers in their approach. They're both ruthless and they're providing people with what they want to read. 

Denton isn't some kind of media hero righting wrongs. We gave rise to it, as readers, as media consumers. Gawker and Denton didn't invent a new kind of media or this type of journalism. Our culture, our reading habits, our desire to consume these kinds did. If readers wanted it gone, they'd stop reading and caring about it.

What kind of headlines do we want to consume and care about? Small dicks by the looks of it. Just today on Gawker this headline pops out.

I've assigned dick stories. They do well. At Pixable one of the most highly trafficked and shared (over 450,000 shares) was about sending a bag of gummy dicks through the mail. I get it. We get it. 

But there's a huge difference between even a post like the above or gummy dicks and potentially ruining somebody's life with an exposé. And that's where the animosity towards Gawker stems.

Gawker isn't a publication that you like. And Gawker doesn't care if you like them, they care if you read them. And you have been.

I work with publishers big and small across the country, and I'd work with Gawker regardless of whether or not I agree with their content or editorial practices. Professionally, it isn't up to me to judge unless the publication is State sponsored or controlled. Gawker would get the same experience as a publisher I consume daily as a reader. That's how it's supposed to be. Fair treatment.

A Hit To New Age Media Publishers

A colleague of mine at Apester says this "hit on gawker is a hit to any new age media publisher who wants to be brave and bold - and this is a major hit for those who want to generate cutting edge news." 

Whether or not your definition of "cutting edge news" includes Gawker or if you believe Peter Thiel is justified in going after Gawker and holding a vendetta against Nick Denton for their story isn't what's important here.

What's important is the precedent Gawker going bankrupt and how they went bankrupt sets. Peter Thiel isn't to blame, neither is Hulk Hogan. They have every reason to want to see Gawker burn. That Thiel was able to fly under the radar and actively contribute to the demise of a media property by using his extensive resources is where this story turns sour.

Blame the system that allowed this to happen. Blame the ability for unimpartial, powerful, anonymous beneficiaries being allowed to contribute funding lawsuits capable of taking down a media company that targeted them. 

It sets the precedent that aspiring media start ups or even established ones better watch out because if there's somebody out there who simply doesn't like what was written and has the financial resources to take them out, it is a very realistic possibility and a very real concern. 

If the unlikable and defiant Gawker can be taken down then the TMZs of the media world had better watch their backs along with everybody else.

You never know if the person you've just pissed off has enough time, effort and money to take you down without you even knowing it. 

*Edits: Grammar, clarity.