In an attempt to get ahead of the news of the Gawker bankruptcy sale, Facebook mega-investor Peter Thiel took to the New York Times to explain his central role in the ruination of Gawker as an independent media voice.
Thiel himself triggered the bankruptcy by funding the lawsuit of Terry Bollea, otherwise known as Hulk Hogan, against the media company for posting what the professional wrestler claims was a sex video intended for private consumption only. (We don’t know or question Bollea’s motives; Queerty readers are well aware celebrities sometimes distribute self-erotica as a publicity ploy.)
Presided over by a right-wing judge, a Florida jury awarded Hogan $140 million, enough to bankrupt Gawker, the inimitable content site that was among the first companies to translate journalism to a huge digital audience. Like many online content businesses, it has struggled to come up with a business model to match its enormous reach. (Thanks to Thiel, that business model just got a lot harder.)
In the article, the PayPal founder justifies the suit on the grounds that it’s payback for Gawker’s invasion of his own privacy. In 2007, Thiel was outed by the site in what appeared to the rest of the world an entirely favorable post that the author, a gay man, and his heavily gay and pro-gay audience could only see as a compliment. For this young audience, sexual orientation is about as relevant a matter as handedness, which makes Thiel sound about a generation older than he actually is. At any rate, who wouldn’t want a fabulously successful Silicon Valley investor playing for their team? He was another brick in the wall against bullying and violence still routinely visited upon LGBTQs, not to mention a role model for a generation of openly gay entrepreneurs.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Related: 5 Reasons Peter Thiel’s Gawker Vendetta Is So Dangerous
Thiel, however, writes that the article “didn’t feel good” and began looking for a way to take down Gawker (and, apparently, the unwitting victims, its writers and editors).
Boo-hoo. The poor billionaire, forced to face, in public for the first time, the truth about being gay that others had spent decades, often at great personal cost, making not only acceptable but even laudatory.
Out of Gawker’s tens of thousands of articles, some of which are clearly groundbreaking, Thiel cherry picks three to justify his crusade–his own outing, the Hulk Hogan post, as well the reprehensible invasion of the privacy of a closeted male media executive who allegedly arranged a liaison with a male escort. (After a public outcry, Gawker removed the post.)
Thiel puts it this way:
A free press is vital for public debate. Since sensitive information can sometimes be publicly relevant, exercising judgment is always part of the journalist’s profession. It’s not for me to draw the line, but journalists should condemn those who willfully cross it. The press is too important to let its role be undermined by those who would search for clicks at the cost of the profession’s reputation.
Of course the real problem is that Thiel actually did draw his own line–without consulting a single real journalist–anonymously, via a cowardly third party lawsuit, until he was outed for his role in the case.
The question is: Who decides? For Thiel, the only plausible answer is those who have the resources to fund lawsuits against the most vulnerable media companies, a group of people limited to Thiel and perhaps a few dozen other deep pocketed ideologues. The supposedly liberty loving Thiel, who somehow still manages to call himself libertarian, has discovered a First Amendment end run, a strategy he promises to pursue on behalf of newly minted victims. (We’re awaiting the day he funds a lawsuit on behalf of a poor person.)
Meanwhile, media companies without the revenue to defend lawsuits shake in their boots and self-censor, the very definition of a chilling effect. In an era when election coverage often seems limited to disgusting and hair-brained Trumpian personal attacks and Twitter flame wars, Thiel should be using his resources to create more and better speech, not less.
ymck
Good riddance to bad rubbish. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer bunch of folks. Also something about bulls and horns.
MarionPaige
It is amazing to me that a generation that grew up with media can still be so susceptible to propaganda. A handful of NYC Media pimping Nick Denton was all it took for many to buy Gawker as something more than smoke an mirrors. The “harm” is all of the web properties that couldn’t get past the NYT – Gawker Barrier To Entry.
We can probably look forward though to Denton fronting some revolutionary snarky new Gay Blog.
Mo Bro
This article exists solely because the man supports Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton, which makes it by definition yellow journalism.
Xzamilio
No…. not getting on board with this one. Gawker is/was an awful site and I’m glad to see it go down. Nothing I can’t stand more than a group that is everything it chides their opponents for being but excuses itself because it has “moral righteousness” on their side. We would decry the right for doing so (We HAVE decried the right for doing so) so why not aspects of the left, where I know most of us lean.
robho3
Well I don’t condon anybody outing another person and gawker did deserve what it got- Peter Theil is bat shit crazy. I’m sure Donald Trump has a cabinet position for him when he becomes president in a parallel universe.
MacAdvisor
Given the number of lives the media has ruined with lies, rumor, innuendo, and half-truths, one can only cry crocodile tears that one of their own finally met someone able to fight back and win. I am all for a free press. Publish and be dam*ed as the saying goes. However, sometimes the target fights back. I don’t Thiel, I think the man has many problems, and could use some good counseling. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the right to use his money in a perfectly legal and above-board way to achieve his goals. He has not hidden his agenda of destroying Gawker and Gawker new perfectly well he was after them. They could have apologized, made nice, or done something to avoid this. If the editors and staff are any good, they will find other jobs, but the managers who made this awful decision to pick a fight with someone better prepared and equipped will have learned a lesson.
MacAdvisor
“I don’t like Thiel” new = knew, as in “knew perfectly well”
Wish there was a way to edit posts.
IDoNotHaveToAgreeWithYou
Why are all the gay blogs so upset about a sleazy tabloid that did something illegal going out of business? Too close to home?
Chris
Yawn, we’ve been over this how many times? Gawker invaded someone’s privacy, purposefully and without remorse. Someone else funded the resulting lawsuit and, effectively, took Gawker out of the game.
I really don’t care about Thiel’s motivations. Even if Queerty claims that Gawker misbehaved just once, I am left asking “how many other times did they do this without consequence?” Candidly, I don’t care if, on balance, Gawker did more good than harm.
Meh, time to move on.
MarionPaige
@IDoNotHaveToAgreeWithYou: “Why are all the gay blogs so upset about a sleazy tabloid …”
Exactly, since Nick Denton is the biggest threat to existing gay media players (unless one of them hires Denton). Reports are that Univison made the highest bid for Gawker so, Denton doesn’t have the guarantee of a job as He had with Ziff Davis. I mean,
What else can a Nick Denton BS a living out of but by him creating a gay blog?
curan
I have absolutely no sympathy for Gawker. Thiel had the ultimate say over who knew what and when. A reporter usurping this decision brought destruction on his employer, and this is as it should be. I realize that Thiel’s views are eccentric, but his cause was just.
SteveDenver
Too bad Perez Hilton didn’t cross Thiel.
He’s a b!tchy queen, a stupid queer Republican, and Gawker played a dangerous game with someone who had bigger guns.
captainburrito
Thiel is thin skinned and a bit petty. But if Hogan funded it himself the result would have been the same. Gawker screwed up with that and the outing of the media guy.