Author Topic: Daily Mail vs. Gawker  (Read 4953 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ultimate Paragon

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8423
  • Gender: Male
  • Tougher than diamonds, stronger than steel

Offline mellenORL

  • Pedal Pushing Puppy Peon
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3876
  • Gender: Female
Re: Daily Mail vs. Gawker
« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2015, 09:47:09 am »
That's a bum fight, right there.
Quote from: Ultimate Chatbot That Totally Passes The Turing Test
I sympathize completely. However, to use against us. Let me ask you a troll. On the one who pulled it. But here's the question: where do I think it might as well have stepped out of all people would cling to a layman.

Offline I am lizard

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3545
    • https://www.instagram.com/p/9SIHifrULJ/
Re: Daily Mail vs. Gawker
« Reply #2 on: September 04, 2015, 10:53:19 am »

Offline Lt. Fred

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2994
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you were trying to do there
Re: Daily Mail vs. Gawker
« Reply #3 on: September 04, 2015, 05:53:35 pm »
Nah, if Gawker loses this we lose. Media has to be able to publish factually true critical comment - and they might actually be on shaky legal grounds, given Britain's wild defamation law.
Ultimate Paragon admits to fabricating a hit piece on Politico.

http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6936.0

The party's name is the Democratic Party. It has been since 1830. Please spell correctly.

"The party must go wholly one way or wholly the other. It cannot face in both directions at the same time."
-FDR

Offline Ultimate Paragon

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8423
  • Gender: Male
  • Tougher than diamonds, stronger than steel
Re: Daily Mail vs. Gawker
« Reply #4 on: September 04, 2015, 05:56:30 pm »
Nah, if Gawker loses this we lose. Media has to be able to publish factually true critical comment - and they might actually be on shaky legal grounds, given Britain's wild defamation law.

Gawker is left-wing trash.  The Daily Mail is right-wing trash.  Same shit, different side of the mainstream.

Offline Lt. Fred

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2994
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you were trying to do there
Re: Daily Mail vs. Gawker
« Reply #5 on: September 04, 2015, 05:58:41 pm »
Nah, if Gawker loses this we lose. Media has to be able to publish factually true critical comment - and they might actually be on shaky legal grounds, given Britain's wild defamation law.

Gawker is left-wing trash.  The Daily Mail is right-wing trash.  Same shit, different side of the mainstream.

Has Gawker ever fabricated a story to humiliate an ethnic minority and perpetuate racism? Did Gawker literally back Hitler?

This is a ridiculous comparison. Gawker is a pretty good quality blog that sometimes makes bad mistakes. The Daily Mail is actively evil.
Ultimate Paragon admits to fabricating a hit piece on Politico.

http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6936.0

The party's name is the Democratic Party. It has been since 1830. Please spell correctly.

"The party must go wholly one way or wholly the other. It cannot face in both directions at the same time."
-FDR

Offline Ultimate Paragon

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8423
  • Gender: Male
  • Tougher than diamonds, stronger than steel
Re: Daily Mail vs. Gawker
« Reply #6 on: September 04, 2015, 06:06:17 pm »
Nah, if Gawker loses this we lose. Media has to be able to publish factually true critical comment - and they might actually be on shaky legal grounds, given Britain's wild defamation law.

Gawker is left-wing trash.  The Daily Mail is right-wing trash.  Same shit, different side of the mainstream.

Has Gawker ever fabricated a story to humiliate an ethnic minority and perpetuate racism? Did Gawker literally back Hitler?

Not as far as I know.  You know what they did do?  For one, they enabled celebrity stalkers:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-avakrRUaU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-avakrRUaU</a>

Because there's no way that could possibly end tragically!  Rebecca Schaeffer?  Who's that?

They also refuse to pay their interns, indulge in blatant double standards (condemning the Fappening while keeping a sex tape of Hulk Hogan on their website), doxxed every gun owner in New York City, ruined a Coca-Cola kindness campaign, forcibly outed a CFO... need I go on?

This is a ridiculous comparison. Gawker is a pretty good quality blog that sometimes makes bad mistakes. The Daily Mail is actively evil.

Both are actively evil, or at least unbearably awful.  Two utterly vile rags duking it out to see who's the shittiest.  I hope the only people who profit from this are the lawyers.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2015, 06:21:28 pm by Ultimate Paragon »

Offline Lt. Fred

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2994
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you were trying to do there
Re: Daily Mail vs. Gawker
« Reply #7 on: September 04, 2015, 06:22:46 pm »
Has the Daily Mail ever done anything you would describe as good?
Ultimate Paragon admits to fabricating a hit piece on Politico.

http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6936.0

The party's name is the Democratic Party. It has been since 1830. Please spell correctly.

"The party must go wholly one way or wholly the other. It cannot face in both directions at the same time."
-FDR

Offline Ultimate Paragon

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8423
  • Gender: Male
  • Tougher than diamonds, stronger than steel
Re: Daily Mail vs. Gawker
« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2015, 06:34:31 pm »
Has the Daily Mail ever done anything you would describe as good?

Horrible as they are, they do have occasional moments of shining journalism.  For example, they published an exposé on how British billionaire financier Nat Rothschild treated British Labour minister and EU commissioner Lord Peter Mandelson with a private jet and luxury dining to meet his Russian pal, Oleg Deripaska.  Not coincidentally, Mr. Deripaska owned an aluminum plant that exported the metal to Europe.  Mr. Rothschild sued the paper for libel, but High Court judge sided with the paper and threw off the lawsuit.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2015, 06:39:02 pm by Ultimate Paragon »

Offline guizonde

  • anglican occitan
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1593
  • capslock is the devil
Re: Daily Mail vs. Gawker
« Reply #9 on: September 04, 2015, 06:35:05 pm »
i'm almost with ultie on this one. i'd propose to nuke them both until the earth around them glows neon green. then maybe, i'd consider them less evil than cthulu.
@ guizonde: I think I like the way you think.
Warning: Biohazardously Awesome


0_o 0_0 ¯\(º_o)/¯

Offline I am lizard

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3545
    • https://www.instagram.com/p/9SIHifrULJ/
Re: Daily Mail vs. Gawker
« Reply #10 on: September 04, 2015, 09:08:16 pm »
Not totally sure why you included the coca cola kindness thing in with all the other stuff, UP.

But yeah, Gawker is a bunch of liberal soccer moms trying to be anarchists.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2015, 01:29:48 am by I am lizard »

Offline Askold

  • Definitely not hiding a dark secret.
  • Global Moderator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8358
  • Gender: Male
Re: Daily Mail vs. Gawker
« Reply #11 on: September 04, 2015, 11:45:26 pm »
i'm almost with ultie on this one. i'd propose to nuke them both until the earth around them glows neon green. then maybe, i'd consider them less evil than cthulu.
Blue. If you nuke something it is going to glow blue.
No matter what happens, no matter what my last words may end up being, I want everyone to claim that they were:
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Aww, you guys rock. :)  I feel the love... and the pitchforks and torches.  Tingly!

Offline Sigmaleph

  • Ungodlike
  • Administrator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3615
    • sigmaleph on tumblr
Re: Daily Mail vs. Gawker
« Reply #12 on: September 05, 2015, 12:23:22 am »
Nah, if Gawker loses this we lose. Media has to be able to publish factually true critical comment - and they might actually be on shaky legal grounds, given Britain's wild defamation law.

Gawker is left-wing trash.  The Daily Mail is right-wing trash.  Same shit, different side of the mainstream.

The question of whether Gawker is trash (it is) is separate from the question of whether their criticism was defamation. If it wasn't, then the Daily Mail winning is indeed a loss.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I thought you were in favour of free speech, even for people you detest? Can't imagine the Daily Mail being able to suppress criticism via lawsuit is too healthy for freedom of speech, to be honest.
Σא

Offline rookie

  • Miscreant, petty criminal, and all around nice guy
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2200
  • Gender: Male
Re: Daily Mail vs. Gawker
« Reply #13 on: September 05, 2015, 01:45:23 am »
i'm almost with ultie on this one. i'd propose to nuke them both until the earth around them glows neon green. then maybe, i'd consider them less evil than cthulu.
Blue. If you nuke something it is going to glow blue.

Depends on how hard you nuke it.
The difference between 0 and 1 is infinite. The difference between 1 and a million is a matter of degree. - Zack Johnson

Quote from: davedan board=pg thread=6573 post=218058 time=1286247542
I'll stop eating beef lamb and pork the same day they start letting me eat vegetarians.

Offline Ultimate Paragon

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8423
  • Gender: Male
  • Tougher than diamonds, stronger than steel
Re: Daily Mail vs. Gawker
« Reply #14 on: September 05, 2015, 08:10:03 am »
Nah, if Gawker loses this we lose. Media has to be able to publish factually true critical comment - and they might actually be on shaky legal grounds, given Britain's wild defamation law.

Gawker is left-wing trash.  The Daily Mail is right-wing trash.  Same shit, different side of the mainstream.

The question of whether Gawker is trash (it is) is separate from the question of whether their criticism was defamation. If it wasn't, then the Daily Mail winning is indeed a loss.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I thought you were in favour of free speech, even for people you detest? Can't imagine the Daily Mail being able to suppress criticism via lawsuit is too healthy for freedom of speech, to be honest.

Look, I don't know whether it was defamation, I'm just happy to see something like this.  It's like Ramsay Snow taking on the Mountain that Rides.

I support free speech.  I don't support dishonesty.  Especially not from supposed journalists.