Nieman Foundation at Harvard
HOME
          
LATEST STORY
In Winnipeg, micropayments aren’t generating big money, but they’re serving as a top-of-the-funnel strategy
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
Aug. 22, 2017, 12:23 p.m.
Reporting & Production
LINK: www.washingtonpost.com  ➚   |   Posted by: Ricardo Bilton   |   August 22, 2017

How would Gawker be covering the Trump era were it still around in 2017? It’s a question on the minds of many today, a year to the day after CEO Nick Denton announced the site was shutting down.

That question is tied up in the larger one about how Gawker, a site with significant numbers of both detractors and supporters, should be remembered. One take that’s getting a lot of attention is this Washington Post tribute by University of Maine professor Michael J. Socolow, who accurately concluded that Gawker’s legacy in death is just as complicated as its journalistic was role in life.

Gawker might have been foolhardy, reckless and ultimately self-destructive, but it was also, above all, courageous. With the hindsight of Donald Trump’s ascendancy to the presidency, we should all recognize that courage in the media is needed now more than ever.

Gawker is mostly defined as a guilty pleasure, an exercise in prurience by bored Web surfers and their millennial progeny. Yet its impact on American media remains undeniable. It launched the careers of an excellent set of young journalists, and it demonstrated a rare independence from corporate pressure, celebrity handlers and political operatives

Many former Gawker writers and editors shared Socolow’s affection for Gawker’s journalistic legacy.

Others, like former Gawker writer Max Read, have noted that Gawker’s spirit is still very much alive across the industry. Gawker reporters have gone onto to write for and edit many other publications, including Splinter, The Intercept, New York Magazine, and Wired. (We’ve covered how the Special Projects Desk at Gizmodo Media Group is keeping some of the Gawker legacy alive.)

Of course, the post-mortem fondness for Gawker is far from universal. Gawker’s brand of reporting was always too cruel and uncompromising for some, and many were happy to see the site go, and are still happy that its gone. (Others like David Boardman, dean of the Klein College of Media and Communication at Temple University were more ambivalent about Gawker’s legacy.)

For other Gawker reactions from last year, here’s Max Read on who really killed Gawker, Tom Scocca on the disturbing realty of billionaire-funded publication takedowns, and a piece by Chore Sicha that concludes, somewhat eerily, that “The moment will come soon enough when you need a Gawker, and you’ll be furious that you no longer have one.”

Show tags Show comments / Leave a comment
 
Join the 45,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
In Winnipeg, micropayments aren’t generating big money, but they’re serving as a top-of-the-funnel strategy
Three years in, the Winnipeg Free Press’ attempt to get readers to pay by the article is still producing less than $100,000 a year — but it also produces data that allows for more targeted upsell efforts.
Democrats see most news outlets as unbiased. Republicans think they’re almost all biased.
Plus: Facebook expands its fact-checking program; for one thing, it now covers photos and video.
The Appeal focuses on an often undercovered aspect of criminal justice: local prosecutors
The site, recently rebranded from In Justice Today, wants to shine a light on a more mysterious part of the legal system by focusing on local prosecutors and criminal justice policy.