The Swamp

I had been waiting for this one. I'm guessing that the rest of the Swamp hasn't followed this as closely as I have, so here's what you need to know: Hogan slept with his friend's wife. (Not surreptitiously; the friend was cool with it.) There was a video. Years later, Hogan and the friend had a falling out. The friend (legally named Bubba the Love Sponge) shopped the video around. Gawker bought it and posted it on their site. A judge ordered them to take it down; Gawker refused. Hogan sued, said that he wanted $100M.

The trial just wrapped up, and the jury rewarded him...$115M! Gawker will obviously appeal, and Hogan won't get any money anytime soon. But hoo-boy, that's a lot of money. That's like two Erin Andrews' worth!

You can say a lot of things about Hulk Hogan/Terry Bollea, but you can say a lot worse about Gawker. I've had a love/hate relationship with Gawker and its various sites since the beginning, and this verdict is kind of delicious. (Especially since AJ Daleurio was the editor of Gawker at the time of the incident.) I haven't checked the on-line reaction yet, but I'm sure there's a lot of celebrating and gloating.

To your last line, yes. If my Facebook feed is any indicator.

Since I don't have cable and kinda live through whatever I find while poking around the internet, this whole story was just awkward. I saw headlines the whole time and didn't really care to dig deeper. I'm glad Gawker got handled though. That's worth a chuckle.

Johnnie wrote:I'm glad Gawker got handled though. That's worth a chuckle.

[sighs] Gawker. I don't know if it's because my political views have grown a bit more moderate as I've aged, or if it's just that I don't like being preached at, but Gawker's editorial side has really bugged me lately. Like, I just came here to read an article about soccer, so don't tell me that I'm a horrible person because I don't hate every police officer on the planet, you know?

Also, they were so sanctimonious about The Fappening, but they've done worse. (They outed Geithner's brother last year, which led to a huge scuffle and exodus/purge of their editorial/writing staff. Strangely, Nick Denton was the one person who acted like an adult in that situation.)

This has been (surprise, surprise) huge down here. Apparently, Daulerio and Denton are both equally liable as well.

Let's also note:
And:

$115 million verdict in Hulk Hogan sex-tape lawsuit could wipe out Gawker

Which would mean bye bye to Deadspin, Gizmodo, Likehacker, Jalopnik, Kotaku, and Jezebel. That last one deserves it. The others don't.

But if HBO could somehow acquire Deadspin and roll it into The Ringer's eventual media empire....hmmmm.

^^^

Yeah, I've thought of that. And there are a lot of writers/editors at the Gawker sites (yes, even at Jezebel) whom I admire. I don't want to see anybody lose their job. Deadspin was good, then it was bad, then it was good again, and now it's not so great. But I still kind of love it, you know? We'll sit thru the appeals process and see how this plays out.

The thought of AJ Daulario scraping up his pathetic nickels to pay Hulk Hogan makes me laugh. Sorry, not sorry.

Kind of related, because this came out because of the videos/trial, and because I wasn't Swamping last summer (or at least wasn't Swamping about Hogan last summer): I was really bothered when Hogan was fired by the WWE when the racist stuff was revealed. (He was also given the full Chris Benoit treatment and officially never existed.) Those were private conversations between Hogan and a friend, whom he had just had sex with, and he didn't know that he was being recorded.

There's so much talk about privacy now. The NSA, data breaches, tracking, hacking, etc. And here's a case where political correctness outweighed privacy. As a wrestling fan, I've heard a lot of shitty stories about Hogan over the years, but I never heard anything race-related, so he must have tried to keep that to himself.

I dunno. It's all very sticky. Yeah, he thought and said some awful things a decade ago, but I still hate Gawker more in this situation.

brian wrote:The thought of AJ Daulario scraping up his pathetic nickels to pay Hulk Hogan makes me laugh. Sorry, not sorry.

I didn't read Deadspin for years because of Daulerio. Even after he left, the thought of Deadspin seemed distasteful.

I'm going to bed. Tomorrow, I'm going to read a hundred articles about all of this stuff.

I've been reading Deadspin off and on for a long time. Started reading io9 when it came along. I guess it was inevitable that at some point I would regularly read the mothership, but I check it multiple times a day at this point and I don't really remember when that started happening. The Swamp is really going to have to pick up its game if Gawker Media goes under.

but I check it multiple times a day at this point and I don't really remember when that started happening.

There's enough good/fun stuff to make it worthwhile. Same goes for all of their sites. I don't go to the main site very often, but there have been times when I've been a semi-regular reader.

I was skimming Gawker the day that the Geithner article was posted. I read the summary, shrugged, and kept scrolling. It didn't even register that it was more sleazy than their usual fare. It wasn't until the next day, when I saw the on-line blowback, that I realized what was going on. The fact that Denton was the one who pulled it, and his top editors then resigned, made it all seem very bizarro world.

This was all happening as Reddit was beginning to eat itself and Ellen Pao was forced to resign. It was a fun summer if you like media drama.

The Swamp is really going to have to pick up its game if Gawker Media goes under.

I'll do my best.

I would think that any assets (i.e., websites) that have any value could be sold at a fire sale price. But, have no opinion as to whether any of these sites actually have any positive value. And the buyer would most likely remake the sites in its own editorial image, much like Trump did to Bloom County in a more innocent time.

As for Hulk, he remains one of my all time favorite celebrity brushes, so I will always have a soft spot.

By the way, if you haven't kept up on AJ Daulerio, he founded Ratter, which was partly funded by Denton. It was supposed to be an SB Nation-type network of sites about sleazy political news, I guess?

It launched, then it went on hiatus. Daulerio fired the entire editorial staff. Then it relaunched. Now it's on hiatus again. It bills itself as 'the underbelly of everything,' so I don't think we're missing anything.

Johnnie wrote: Which would mean bye bye to Deadspin, Gizmodo, Likehacker, Jalopnik, Kotaku, and Jezebel.

I find myself on these sites almost never. Maybe once a week someone will point me at Deadspin, the rest rarely. Am I typical of the geezer generation, or an outlier even amongst old folks.

howard wrote:

Johnnie wrote: Which would mean bye bye to Deadspin, Gizmodo, Likehacker, Jalopnik, Kotaku, and Jezebel.

I find myself on these sites almost never. Maybe once a week someone will point me at Deadspin, the rest rarely. Am I typical of the geezer generation, or an outlier even amongst old folks.

I have Deadpspin on my Facebook feed, so I click links to stories fairly often.

howard wrote:

Johnnie wrote: Which would mean bye bye to Deadspin, Gizmodo, Likehacker, Jalopnik, Kotaku, and Jezebel.

I find myself on these sites almost never. Maybe once a week someone will point me at Deadspin, the rest rarely. Am I typical of the geezer generation, or an outlier even amongst old folks.

I'm 42, and the Gawker sites make me feel ancient. Then again, bingo halls and VFW gatherings make me feel ancient. I'd say you're far from unique, howard.

howard wrote:

Johnnie wrote: Which would mean bye bye to Deadspin, Gizmodo, Likehacker, Jalopnik, Kotaku, and Jezebel.

I find myself on these sites almost never. Maybe once a week someone will point me at Deadspin, the rest rarely. Am I typical of the geezer generation, or an outlier even amongst old folks.

I read Deadspin fairly often, but usually just skim the headlines. The other sites...not so much.

howard wrote:

Johnnie wrote: Which would mean bye bye to Deadspin, Gizmodo, Likehacker, Jalopnik, Kotaku, and Jezebel.

I find myself on these sites almost never. Maybe once a week someone will point me at Deadspin, the rest rarely. Am I typical of the geezer generation, or an outlier even amongst old folks.

The only time any of these sites are on my radar is when someone here links a Deadspin article. And when Gawker made fun of me and my wife. I would think they would be smart enough to incorporate each of the sites individually, so the lawsuit would only effect Gawker.

Back when Bubba the Love Sponge was on the Stern Network, Stern had Bubba on all the time. Couldn't stand him, so I never listened to his show, but Bubba had a very unhealthy obsession with Hulk. They were both in Tampa and became friends. Bubba talked about letting his wife bang Hulk, which was really disturbing.

Tack on $25 million more for punitive damages and a response by Nick Denton that I won't be reading in its entirety.

It has been funny watching a dude troll the hell out of Gawker posts though. Named himself Hulkster and just decides to make ridiculous comments.

I read the sites every day (good for pooping/train) but I have no problem with the decision. If this were an actress "who made her sexuality" part of her persona, I trust/hope it wouldn't have even been up for debate.

mister d wrote:I read the sites every day (good for pooping/train) but I have no problem with the decision. If this were an actress "who made her sexuality" part of her persona, I trust/hope it wouldn't have even been up for debate.

If Hogan knew that he was being filmed -- as Gawker alleges -- I imagine this changes quite a bit.

Knew he was being filmed or knew he was being filmed for distribution?

mister d wrote:Knew he was being filmed or knew he was being filmed for distribution?

Moreover, the basis of his claim that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy during his sexual encounters with Heather Cole, then Bubba’s wife, was that Hogan didn’t know he was being filmed. From the documents released by the appellate court, it is now clear that this is contradicted by multiple statements Bubba made to FBI agents asserting that Hogan knew full well that Bubba had wired his bedroom for video and was filming. We were barred from presenting that crucial evidence to the jury, or asking Bubba how much his most intimate friend knew about the couple’s sexual practices.

Hogan initially blamed his friend for the tape’s release, but later settled his lawsuit against Bubba for the sum of $5,000 and a pledge to play the role that Hogan needed him to in the litigation against Gawker. Bubba complied, asserting his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination to avoid answering our questions about Hogan’s role in the tape’s genesis; the trial court allowed him to keep his end of his settlement bargain and prevented us from putting him on the witness stand.

Hmmm, not sure I understand that. I'm sure most revenge porn cases are with participants who know they're being filmed, right?

It seems that a lot of evidence was inadmissible in this trial, so Gawker does have a case for an appeal. Be strong, appellate judges!

Denton's two main arguments: a) Hogan probably knew about the video, and b) he's a celebrity, so his reasonable expectation of privacy differs from that of non-celebrities. In fact, he's apparently not entitled to any privacy at all.

Celebrities, especially ones as public about their personal and sex life as Hulk Hogan, have a narrower zone of privacy than ordinary people. Regardless of questions about Gawker’s editorial standards and methods, self-promoters should not be allowed to seek attention around a specific topic and then claim privacy when the narrative takes an unwelcome turn. The benefits of publicity come at a price; and for someone like Hogan, whose whole life is a performance, it’s a full-time and long-term commitment.

I agree with this up to a certain point. (Like, it's newsworthy that a moralizer like Bill Cosby might be a monster.) But not when it involves showing unauthorized clips of home movies, even if they 'joined an existing conversation and explored the public’s fascination with celebrity sex tapes.'

And his positioning of himself as a First Amendment martyr is laughable.

Hogan lawsuit may have been bankrolled by a Silicon Valley billionaire with a grudge

It all comes down to a simple point. You may not like Gawker. They've published stories I would have been ashamed to publish. But if the extremely wealthy, under a veil secrecy, can destroy publications they want to silence, that's a far bigger threat to freedom of the press than most of the things we commonly worry about on that front. If this is the new weapon in the arsenal of the super rich, few publications will have the resources or the death wish to scrutinize them closely.

I knew that had Gavin Belsen's fingerprints all over it.

rass wrote:Hogan lawsuit may have been bankrolled by a Silicon Valley billionaire with a grudge

It all comes down to a simple point. You may not like Gawker. They've published stories I would have been ashamed to publish. But if the extremely wealthy, under a veil secrecy, can destroy publications they want to silence, that's a far bigger threat to freedom of the press than most of the things we commonly worry about on that front. If this is the new weapon in the arsenal of the super rich, few publications will have the resources or the death wish to scrutinize them closely.

But but, SAFE SPACES!!!!

rass wrote:Hogan lawsuit may have been bankrolled by a Silicon Valley billionaire with a grudge

It all comes down to a simple point. You may not like Gawker. They've published stories I would have been ashamed to publish. But if the extremely wealthy, under a veil secrecy, can destroy publications they want to silence, that's a far bigger threat to freedom of the press than most of the things we commonly worry about on that front. If this is the new weapon in the arsenal of the super rich, few publications will have the resources or the death wish to scrutinize them closely.

Valid points. But, then again, if Gawker didn't behave in a scummy, shady manner, there would be no lawsuit to bankroll.

sancarlos wrote:

rass wrote:Hogan lawsuit may have been bankrolled by a Silicon Valley billionaire with a grudge

It all comes down to a simple point. You may not like Gawker. They've published stories I would have been ashamed to publish. But if the extremely wealthy, under a veil secrecy, can destroy publications they want to silence, that's a far bigger threat to freedom of the press than most of the things we commonly worry about on that front. If this is the new weapon in the arsenal of the super rich, few publications will have the resources or the death wish to scrutinize them closely.

Valid points. But, then again, if Gawker didn't behave in a scummy, shady manner, there would be no lawsuit to bankroll.

Yup. This billionaire didn't force them to post a sex tape.

And, if you read deeper, his hatred appears to be based in their attempts to publicly out him. Its probably a universal bad, but its hard to not see and take his side.

rass wrote:Gawker.com to End Operations Next Week

The other six properties (Deadspin, Jezebel et al) apparently will go on. Not sure why gawker.com gets the axe in the end, weird.

tennbengal wrote:

rass wrote:Gawker.com to End Operations Next Week

The other six properties (Deadspin, Jezebel et al) apparently will go on. Not sure why gawker.com gets the axe in the end, weird.

yeah, I'm looking forward to reading the explanation. I also don't know how the main site stacks up to the others in terms of traffic (figure it's No. 2 behind DS or No. 1).

To pile on...not sure it was linked, but did you want to see a lawyer curbstomp AJ Daulerio on the stand at trial? I know you did!

I meant to post this a week ago but forgot. Esquire caught up with our friend AJ Daulerio. The takeaway: he's a recovering addict, and he may have recovered a memory of being molested when he was a kid. This certainly muddies the waters. I want to be able to hate him without complication, and I can't really do that in good conscience. But if you read the article, you'll be reminded why it's okay to hate him, at least a little bit.

color me skeptical.

https://youtu.be/G9v6ea9FL6M

Just saw this last week. It might be a year old, but it is great.