Nieman Foundation at Harvard
HOME
          
LATEST STORY
Are news publishers directly liable for embedding tweets that contain images not created by that tweeter?
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.
Are news publishers directly liable for embedding tweets that contain images not created by that tweeter?
A New York federal judge ruled that when publishers from The Boston Globe to Vox Media to Breitbart “caused the embedded tweets to appear on their websites, their actions violated plaintiff’s exclusive display right.”
What strategies work best for increasing trust in local newsrooms? Trusting News has some ideas
“It’s not so much about gaming Facebook’s algorithm or working with the Facebook changes as much as it is taking advantage of Facebook as a truly social platform.”
Should we consider fake news another form of (not particularly effective) political persuasion — or something more dangerous?
Plus: The lines between “fake news” and psyops, the Russians shared real news too, and “reality apathy.”