Topic: Gawker founder looking to sell after losing Hogan judgment
Anonymous A started this discussion 10 years ago #52,539
http://nypost.com/2016/05/26/gawker-founder-looking-to-sell-after-losing-hogan-judgment/
Haha
> Denton hired Houlihan Lokey media banker Mark Patricof to advise him on the valuation of the cash-hungry company in the event that he needs to sell it to pay damages to Hulk Hogan, who was awarded $140 million by a Florida jury after Gawker posted a sex video of the wrestling legend, sources said.
Haha
> Denton hired Houlihan Lokey media banker Mark Patricof to advise him on the valuation of the cash-hungry company in the event that he needs to sell it to pay damages to Hulk Hogan, who was awarded $140 million by a Florida jury after Gawker posted a sex video of the wrestling legend, sources said.
(Edited 42 seconds later.)
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 10 minutes later[^] [v] #685,995
If the owner Nick Denton really has $50,000,000 in cash to put up in bond with the courts if Hogan prevails - He should take the money and run to one of many quality places to live where they will not extradite him.
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
hamfist !0Ynig1RSDc joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 18 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #686,005
gawker is garbage
Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #686,006
What a bullshit verdict. 140 millions? It's baloney.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 27 seconds later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #686,007
I hope that Kotaku survives, since they're a division of Gawker. They're good at reporting video game news.
(Edited 29 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #686,010
kook !!vzUOyOi/5 joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #686,011
I hate them for their hypocrisy and liberal bias bullshit
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 10 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #686,017
@686,010 (A)
You don't even read it, Svet. You wouldn't know that they provide a wide variety of interesting and relevant gaming news.
You don't even read it, Svet. You wouldn't know that they provide a wide variety of interesting and relevant gaming news.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #686,027
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
I wood bet solid cold hard cash that Gawker is Svet's go to site.
I wood bet solid cold hard cash that Gawker is Svet's go to site.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 39 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #686,079
@686,017 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
I agree with svet is a!faggot here. Your saying kotaku is a source of good coverage does make me think you're fucking retarded.
Sorry KL.
I agree with svet is a!faggot here. Your saying kotaku is a source of good coverage does make me think you're fucking retarded.
Sorry KL.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #686,103
@previous (H)
Yeah, I am saying it. They cover all the current goings-on in gaming, and often look at more niche things too (e.g, I learnt about the interesting "12 Minutes" indie game from there). They also run an interesting feature called "The Time When", which looks at interesting parts of gaming history, as well as being notorious for getting leaked information early.
I'm not sure why you have this overly negative impression of them, but they're really not that bad.
Yeah, I am saying it. They cover all the current goings-on in gaming, and often look at more niche things too (e.g, I learnt about the interesting "12 Minutes" indie game from there). They also run an interesting feature called "The Time When", which looks at interesting parts of gaming history, as well as being notorious for getting leaked information early.
I'm not sure why you have this overly negative impression of them, but they're really not that bad.
Anonymous H replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #686,107
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Didn't read.
Their coverage is facile. Most of the Gawker properties are well known for prioritizing clicks over anything resembling quality.
I seriously think less of your intellect now.
Didn't read.
Their coverage is facile. Most of the Gawker properties are well known for prioritizing clicks over anything resembling quality.
I seriously think less of your intellect now.
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,113
buton joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 22 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,114
@686,107 (H)
U making judgments on his 'intellect' based on his Preferences re: video game news?
Nerd
Gay
U making judgments on his 'intellect' based on his Preferences re: video game news?
Nerd
Gay
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,125
Anonymous H replied with this 10 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,145
@686,114 (buton)
You judge people for thinking highly of terrible news sources, we are gay nerds together in this.
You judge people for thinking highly of terrible news sources, we are gay nerds together in this.
buton replied with this 10 years ago, 24 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,169
@previous (H)
> You judge people for thinking highly of terrible news sources, we are gay nerds together in this.
Where
> You judge people for thinking highly of terrible news sources, we are gay nerds together in this.
Where
Gay nerd alert replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,212
buton replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,213
Nexi !FMXTRANsAM joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 27 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,222
Wasn't this thread about gawker getting sued instead of whether or not kotaku is a good news source or not?
I want to know more about this case. I wonder how far it will go in appeals. Will the supreme court look at it since it does have 1st amendment implications?
I want to know more about this case. I wonder how far it will go in appeals. Will the supreme court look at it since it does have 1st amendment implications?
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,247
@previous (Nexi !FMXTRANsAM)
Not about kotaku at all.
http://www.poynter.org/2016/hulk-hogan-wins-115-million-judgement-against-gawker-media/402339/
Not about kotaku at all.
http://www.poynter.org/2016/hulk-hogan-wins-115-million-judgement-against-gawker-media/402339/
The case stemmed from the media company's decision to publish an edited sex tape showing the former wrestler having sex with Heather Clem, the ex-wife of shock jock Bubba the Love Sponge Clem. At the crux of the trial was the disputed news value of the tape: Gawker Media alleged its publication of the tape was protected by the First Amendment given its perceived newsworthiness; Hogan's legal team argued that the tape unjustly pried into his personal life.
The jury rendered its verdict just hours after closing arguments concluded Friday afternoon.
In the runup to the trial, Denton told The New York Times and others that a sizable judgment in Hogan's favor could deal a financially crippling blow to the Manhattan-based media company. The damages awarded by the jury, although they may not stand on appeal, would seem to meet those conditions.
However, Denton has taken steps to give Gawker Media a cash cushion in the event of a hefty judgment. Earlier this year, he announced a plan to sell a minority stake in the company to the investment company Columbus Nova Technology Partners for an undisclosed sum, which presumably will shore up Gawker's finances while it fights the ruling.
The legal tussle, which has been waging for several years, featured many legal skirmishes that were fought in Florida's circuit and appeals courts. Among the considerations: Whether evidence gathered by the FBI during an investigation into the sex tape should be made public during the trial; whether the FBI was required to turn investigative records over to Gawker Media; whether the press would have access to sealed records reviewed by the judge; whether the press would be allowed to view the sex tape; and when the trial should take place.
Throughout the trial, Gawker Media's attorneys consistently tried to invoke the First Amendment in order to justify the decision to publish the tape. In closing arguments Friday, Gawker Media attorney Michael Sullivan warned the jury that a verdict in favor of Hogan could set a precedent allowing celebrities to prevent the spread of unflattering information through litigation. Hogan's team, by contrast, argued that Denton and Gawker Media were cavalier peddlers of salacious information, interested only in the clicks that exploitive news could generate.
The jury rendered its verdict just hours after closing arguments concluded Friday afternoon.
In the runup to the trial, Denton told The New York Times and others that a sizable judgment in Hogan's favor could deal a financially crippling blow to the Manhattan-based media company. The damages awarded by the jury, although they may not stand on appeal, would seem to meet those conditions.
However, Denton has taken steps to give Gawker Media a cash cushion in the event of a hefty judgment. Earlier this year, he announced a plan to sell a minority stake in the company to the investment company Columbus Nova Technology Partners for an undisclosed sum, which presumably will shore up Gawker's finances while it fights the ruling.
The legal tussle, which has been waging for several years, featured many legal skirmishes that were fought in Florida's circuit and appeals courts. Among the considerations: Whether evidence gathered by the FBI during an investigation into the sex tape should be made public during the trial; whether the FBI was required to turn investigative records over to Gawker Media; whether the press would have access to sealed records reviewed by the judge; whether the press would be allowed to view the sex tape; and when the trial should take place.
Throughout the trial, Gawker Media's attorneys consistently tried to invoke the First Amendment in order to justify the decision to publish the tape. In closing arguments Friday, Gawker Media attorney Michael Sullivan warned the jury that a verdict in favor of Hogan could set a precedent allowing celebrities to prevent the spread of unflattering information through litigation. Hogan's team, by contrast, argued that Denton and Gawker Media were cavalier peddlers of salacious information, interested only in the clicks that exploitive news could generate.
Nexi !FMXTRANsAM replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,263
@previous (B)
You literally did not understand my post. I know this is about gawker and hulk hogan. this thread got derailed because of the kotaku and nerd obsessions.
You literally did not understand my post. I know this is about gawker and hulk hogan. this thread got derailed because of the kotaku and nerd obsessions.
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,264
Anonymous H replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,266
@686,263 (Nexi !FMXTRANsAM)
Excuse me for ignoring your complaints about thread derailing given your recent history of turning everything you touch to shit.
Excuse me for ignoring your complaints about thread derailing given your recent history of turning everything you touch to shit.
Maddy !kCITGirlXc joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,272
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 14 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,277
Nexi !FMXTRANsAM replied with this 10 years ago, 17 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,278
@686,266 (H)
You can blame me however much you want. I wasn't the one making comments starting any of it. Every single thread was someone who was posting anonymously insulting me. Of course I defend myself.
@previous (M)
> he
Try again.
You can blame me however much you want. I wasn't the one making comments starting any of it. Every single thread was someone who was posting anonymously insulting me. Of course I defend myself.
@previous (M)
> he
Try again.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 15 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,282
Nexi !FMXTRANsAM replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,286
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 20 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,291
It's called Gawker because it has guys with no pants and we look really hard at their wieners
Maddy !kCITGirlXc replied with this 10 years ago, 14 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,298
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 44 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,313
@686,263 (Nexi !FMXTRANsAM)
Not derailed. Kotaku is a part of Gawker, so wondering how this will effect them is on-topic.
Not derailed. Kotaku is a part of Gawker, so wondering how this will effect them is on-topic.
Nexi !FMXTRANsAM replied with this 10 years ago, 33 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,315
Nexi !FMXTRANsAM double-posted this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,316
@686,313 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Sort of did. Afterwards it kind of turned into a shitfest.
@686,264 (B)
I don't give a fuck what you think either. You are to much of a coward to namefag.
Sort of did. Afterwards it kind of turned into a shitfest.
@686,264 (B)
I don't give a fuck what you think either. You are to much of a coward to namefag.
Anonymous E replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,323
@previous (Nexi !FMXTRANsAM)
I'm sorry, I just want my gaming news source to be safe. :(
How else will I stay informed about video games? How, Nexus?!
I'm sorry, I just want my gaming news source to be safe. :(
How else will I stay informed about video games? How, Nexus?!
adam djensen joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,338
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,339
@previous (adam djensen)
Yeah, they're a part of Gawker's network of news sites. I think there's other sites focusing on other interests too. One for gadgets/tech, one for sports, and so on.
Presumably this is going to affect all of the sites under Gawker's banner. But hopefully not too much.
Yeah, they're a part of Gawker's network of news sites. I think there's other sites focusing on other interests too. One for gadgets/tech, one for sports, and so on.
Presumably this is going to affect all of the sites under Gawker's banner. But hopefully not too much.
adam djensen replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,348
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 12 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,350
@previous (adam djensen)
I think they are, for the varied and informative content. They're a good way to keep in touch with my hobby.
I think they are, for the varied and informative content. They're a good way to keep in touch with my hobby.
adam djensen replied with this 10 years ago, 58 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,358
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,359
@previous (adam djensen)
Yeah, I kinda figured that was about as intelligent as your argument would get.
Yeah, I kinda figured that was about as intelligent as your argument would get.
adam djensen replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,360
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
do you also need to be explained why the sun and the daily mail are bad papers
do you also need to be explained why the sun and the daily mail are bad papers
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,361
@previous (adam djensen)
I think you have a distorted, or maybe outdated view of Kotaku. Probably just from second-hand accounts.
They're really not some clickbait-happy, or overly SJW biased news source.
I think you have a distorted, or maybe outdated view of Kotaku. Probably just from second-hand accounts.
They're really not some clickbait-happy, or overly SJW biased news source.
(Edited 8 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,362
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> There's really not some clickbait-happy, or overly SJW biased news source.
Haha okay then, what is?
> There's really not some clickbait-happy, or overly SJW biased news source.
Haha okay then, what is?
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,363
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 38 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,365
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Then if you can't tell what a click bait site is then how are to to judge kotaku being worthy?
Then if you can't tell what a click bait site is then how are to to judge kotaku being worthy?
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,366
@previous (A)
Oh, you misunderstand. I meant that I couldn't name any specific websites that primarily ran shallow clickbait. I can recognise clickbait.
Oh, you misunderstand. I meant that I couldn't name any specific websites that primarily ran shallow clickbait. I can recognise clickbait.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,370
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,371
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 10 years ago, 54 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,372
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 14 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,373
@686,370 (A)
Yeah, it is. But is every article on the site like that? Nah. Going through their front page right now, there's nothing clickbaity there.
Do you know of any perfect gaming news websites, that never do clickbait and are 100% politically neutral?
Yeah, it is. But is every article on the site like that? Nah. Going through their front page right now, there's nothing clickbaity there.
Do you know of any perfect gaming news websites, that never do clickbait and are 100% politically neutral?
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx double-posted this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,375
@686,371 (A)
I don't understand the point of this image. Those are all different writers, giving their opinion. And the first guy is just quoting a developer. I think you're reaching a little with that one, honestly.
I don't understand the point of this image. Those are all different writers, giving their opinion. And the first guy is just quoting a developer. I think you're reaching a little with that one, honestly.
Nexi !FMXTRANsAM replied with this 10 years ago, 49 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,384
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,387
Anonymous H replied with this 10 years ago, 25 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,397
@686,375 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
OP just gave solid evidence showing why you're incorrect. You don't understand the point?
Goodness me you really are a retard.
OP just gave solid evidence showing why you're incorrect. You don't understand the point?
Goodness me you really are a retard.
adam djensen replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,401
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 49 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,415
@previous (adam djensen)
I think it's best we call it here, dw. If you're not going to say anything more substantial than "it's bad" then there's not much point in taking this further.
I think it's best we call it here, dw. If you're not going to say anything more substantial than "it's bad" then there's not much point in taking this further.
(Edited 7 seconds later.)
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,422
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #686,473
@686,415 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Noticed non of them were up to the challenge to suggest a more better web site to use as you use kotaku
I wood expect dw to at least be able to research and offer up what he calls more better - OP as well failed to do that.
So by default they have to admit cause they have no better anything but kotaku - Its the best until they can prove different.
Noticed non of them were up to the challenge to suggest a more better web site to use as you use kotaku
I wood expect dw to at least be able to research and offer up what he calls more better - OP as well failed to do that.
So by default they have to admit cause they have no better anything but kotaku - Its the best until they can prove different.