‘Unsafe and Just Plain Dirty’: Women Accuse Vice of ‘Toxic’ Sexual-Harassment Culture
- Thread starter spam musubi
- Start date
I agree with this wholeheartedly. I don't know how anybody who reads or listens to the things waypoint publishes would ever think they would be okay with not speaking out about this. I'm really confused as to where this attitude comes from of people just salivating over the opportunity to call "hypocrite"
I was with this until I saw the bit about Gawker. Yeah, complaining about that "punitive legal strategy" of suing people who distribute naked videos of you withour consent was totally worth including in a statement against sexual harrassment culture.
I'll be honest: I don't believe anyone who defends Gawker is truly against sexual harrassment. They were an organization that systematically harrassed people, outed gay people for clicks and fun, made up rape allegations, posted a video of a woman being raped and then mocked her for complaining but apparently defending Gawker was more important for Waypoint's staff than standing with their victims.
Given the reluctance to condemn the actions of Gawker shown by many members of the press and their constant caping for it despite their history of abuse I'm wholly unsurprised by the recent wave of acussations of abuse in Polygon, Vice and other outlets. I expected better. Not kidding, either, I was happy to read this statement until I saw that bit. By their own words, they are not living up to their own standards.
Very dissapointed by this.
I'll be honest: I don't believe anyone who defends Gawker is truly against sexual harrassment. They were an organization that systematically harrassed people, outed gay people for clicks and fun, made up rape allegations, posted a video of a woman being raped and then mocked her for complaining but apparently defending Gawker was more important for Waypoint's staff than standing with their victims.
Given the reluctance to condemn the actions of Gawker shown by many members of the press and their constant caping for it despite their history of abuse I'm wholly unsurprised by the recent wave of acussations of abuse in Polygon, Vice and other outlets. I expected better. Not kidding, either, I was happy to read this statement until I saw that bit. By their own words, they are not living up to their own standards.
Very dissapointed by this.
You said it better than me. Gawker getting shit right from time to time doesn't undo the damage they routinely and proudly caused.
If vice and waypoint want to hold gawker as some gold standard I guess I should stop listening/reading/watching before they do something heinous like post a video of a rape victim and laugh as she tries to get it taken down.
Disgusting.
Wow, a lot of this Gawker stuff I haven't heard before. Yikes.
... You don't seem to understand what was said about Gawker at all.
What they said was: The destruction of Gawker set a legal precedent that people with enough money can sue journalists into the ground for saying something they don't like. This has nothing to do with the specifics of the case against Gawker.
yeah, I've seen some good pieces but this is often my first thought as well - he's been gone for ages but Gavin & his proud fuckboys leave such a stink
And that continues to have nothing to do with what they said.
Fuck, why am I even bothering?
The point is, again, the legal precedent. Nothing to do with what Gawker actually did, at all. The entirety of what Waypoint said about Gawker is: "When Gawker closed in 2016, it brought to light a punitive legal strategy that risks to derail vital journalism."
This is not a defense of Gawker. It is not a statement about Gawker at all. The way in which Gawker was brought down is potentially dangerous, because the way it happened didn't actually have anything to do with whether or not Gawker was guilty of anything.
Waypoint's "stance" was the exact same stance of others elsewhere on another site (cough), who themselves have made clear that the legal case was clearly strategized and funded by Peter Thiel to obtain the outcome that resulted and thus made other journalists fear that such strategies could be used against them. It's not because they themselves support Gawker, but the fact that it may set a legal precedent, which is their arguement. They are afraid of the potential unintended consequences from the ruling. There's nuance here that being disingeneous about this conversation won't help.
You can believe and say these things while still thinking that all those actions that Gawker did were wrong.
For example, do you support, say the WAPO or NYT or Reuters, releasing the mythical tape of Trump and Russian prostitutes? Is there an arguement for what makes a story "newsworthy"? We recently had a conservative anti-gay lawmaker outed for being gay. Are journalists right to fear repercussion from said lawmaker?
I 100% agree that Gawker should have been taken down and I was one to cheer when they fell to this. And do I think Waypoint is wrong about this setting a precedent? Yes, yes I am.
You're free to not want to support or give them clicks at all. I encourage it. In fact, don't support any of the smaller spin-offs, Kotaku and Engadget, too. But this framing of them not caring about sexual harrassment or defending Gawker is just plain wrong.
Peter Thiel being a horrible shit doesn't mean Gawker was right to out him as gay especially WHEN THEY KNEW HE WAS IN A COUNTRY WHERE THAT IS PUNISHABLE BY DEATH.
That alone is enough for me to cheer at Gawker to be sued into oblivion. The hogan thing and Gawkers hypocricy regarding that racist trash bag isn't in the top 25 reasons Gawker deserved a worse fate than they received.
Referring to Gawker who mocked and posted a video a rape victim begged them to take down in a statement about vice sexual harassment makes the statement completely empty at best.
For what it's worth the lawyer in the Hogan case, appointed by Thiel, has gone on the record with GQ that he wants to take on the "archaic" libel law in the country. He is also the lawyer who was suing TechDirt over the piece they wrote about the fake email inventor. There was also a deal close to being done with Hogan before Thiel stepped in.
The shit Gawker did was reprehensible but a perfectly crafted legal strategy to bankrupt a company is scary. That's the only point they're trying to make. That the way in which the case was carried out and the outcome from it can lead to other outlets or people being attacked.
The shit Gawker did was reprehensible but a perfectly crafted legal strategy to bankrupt a company is scary. That's the only point they're trying to make. That the way in which the case was carried out and the outcome from it can lead to other outlets or people being attacked.
How anyone can read that statement and come away with "Oh, they're defending Gawker" is absolutely baffling. You'd have to have a real chip on your shoulder to have that be your takeaway.
Recently, there's been a trend of a lot of people talking about being down for it but not actually being about it. Just crossing fingers that Waypoint's credibility doesn't go down the shitter.
That's absolutely nonsense. They committed not one but several crimes and they were found guilty by a court of law. Not by Mr Thiel, but by a judge and a jury and the laws of the United States. That's "the way it happened". Trying to pretend their guilt did not matter in the outcome is whitewashed nonsense and everyone who fails to mention it is throwing victims of sexual harrassment culture under the bus.
Finding Gawker guilty of invasion of privacy, infringement of personality rights and intentional infliction of emotional distress sets for releasing sex tapes sets no new legal precedent whatsoever.
Framing Gawker being successfully prosecuted for having released a sex tape of someone without consent as a "punitive legal strategy that risks to derail vital journalism" is indeed a defense of Gawker and sexual harrassment culture as a whole.
I'm not the only one to notice that game journalists seem to have a Gawker-sized hole in their williness to fight against harrassment. This has been going on for years, from the deafening silence when Gawker commited these crimes to the wholly uneccessary defense of the company well after its demise. There has been a complete unwillingness for many members of the gaming press to condemn Gawker and many, many of them have actively wished for its return and victim blamed Mr Borella.
People like Jason Schreiner (Gawker isn't closing because of a sex tape or bad choices), Stephen Tolito (I miss Gawker) and yes, Mr "But what about the New York Times" Kelpler are supporting harrassment culture. They twist and excuse and look the other way when it comes to Gawker and have done so for years despite their massive, criminal record of abuse, harrassment and revenge.
Again, it's rather telling because they immediately jump on other throats when it comes to the same crimes. Remember the whole James Rolfe Ghostbusters fiasco? The "Max Temkim should apologize for raping a women even if he didn't?" All the tweets clamoring for sexual predators going to jail....Where's that stuff for Gawker? Why aren't they being explicit and saying "Yeah, Gawker posted a video of a woman being raped" and condemning it? They claim to stand with the victims except when it would cost them something to do it. Everything else is cheap talk.
So yeah, I'm not surprised that sexual harrassment accussations are coming out in game journalism. They have been fostering a culture of harrassment for decades.
Trust me, this shit is only the tip of the iceberg. Every time this topic comes up I learn of yet another harrassment campaign or posting of pictures without consent or other bullshit. Last time I learned about the time they wrote articles trying to shame an 8 year old because they didn't like his father.
I'm not too well informed but wasn't the Gawker comment based solely on the Hogan trial not any of the other horrible shit Gawker has done? Isn't the comment solely about the punishment and in no way defending the sites actions? Is it not fair to say that what Hogan got out of the trial could be seen as massively excessive? The company deserved to be hung over the shit they pulled, but I have a hard time seeing how them sinking because of a rich, famous, racist, white guy is justice for the other people who gawker put through worse and didn't get anywhere near as much. Again, I don't know a whole lot about the subject so if I'm wrong then feel free to point it out.
However, given the language of the Waypoint staff, given the history of their actions it's hard for me to believe that any of them would want to defend Gawker for what it pulled.
However, given the language of the Waypoint staff, given the history of their actions it's hard for me to believe that any of them would want to defend Gawker for what it pulled.
It's perfectly reasonable to have separate feelings on "did Gawker deserve to lose the trial?" and "is what happened to Gawker fucking terrifying for journalism?". You can still find Gawker repulsive and deserving of death while still condemning how that came about. No one is arguing that Thiel's bankrolling of Bollea establishes legal precedent. But it shows that a billionaire with an axe to grind is still capable of essentially funding a lawsuit to destroy a company that they do not like. A judge and jury are still human and can be flawed (we see plenty of examples across the United States every single day), and while in this instance Gawker was at least ethically and morally in the wrong, it shows that the same thing can happen in the future for a defendant (specifically a journalist and/or media company) that doesn't deserve to lose for their reporting.
Mentioning Gawker in their statement is not a defense of Gawker's actions, and it is not an equivalence of their release of the Bollea tape with much more vital reporting.
Mentioning Gawker in their statement is not a defense of Gawker's actions, and it is not an equivalence of their release of the Bollea tape with much more vital reporting.
OP
OP
It's been two weeks and no real new news or statement from anyone except one suspension. What's going on?
Also, there was this story from last week with 10 employees coming to CNN and telling them to expect more accusations. Apparently the union statement was more of an attempt to sweep things under the rug.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/22/media/vice-media/index.html
Also, there was this story from last week with 10 employees coming to CNN and telling them to expect more accusations. Apparently the union statement was more of an attempt to sweep things under the rug.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/22/media/vice-media/index.html
What do you want Waypoint to say right now if there is nothing to say on their end?
And the union statement was an attempt to sweep things under the rug? The union is mentioned just once in that CNN piece and only in that they made a statement in response to the Daily Beast story. Are you confusing the "state of the union" meeting that was discussed in the CNN article with Vice's editorial union?
Obviously you can see that Vice's staff is frustrated with the leadership at Vice, and there is no doubt in my mind that Walker, Riendeau, Harrod, and the rest of the Waypoint staff are frustrated too. But them quitting doesn't change anything at Vice nor is it a reflection of their characters.
Waypoint, in their statement, said that:
Vice, with their money and their audience, does not suffer much from Waypoint closing or the staff quitting. But the Waypoint staff, despite their limited reach within Vice's overall organization, can still be a force of positive change AND still use their position to write stories and do work that may not be funded elsewhere.
What do you, nynt9, want them to do?
OP
OP
I did not mention waypoint in that post so I don't know what you're talking about? I was thinking "did anything happen with that vice story, it's been two weeks", and turns out nothing happened so far, which is disappointing. Waypoint aren't involved with the scandal, so why would they have an update? What's with the hostility?
He's been gone for an extremely long time. You can't really just blame him for the organization's shortcomings.
This is the kind of stuff that makes me a fan of Waypoint and what made me gravitate towards them. That's a definitive stance.
Is there any evidence to support such a thing? It doesn't seem supported by the article you linked
What´s wrong with Bill Maher? I know he said some stupid things like the N-word but he apologized and understood his failure. Real Time is pretty great imo
The anti-scientist anti-vaxxer that refers to Ann coulter as his friend? What's wrong with him?
OP
OP
I seem to have misread, collating the union statement with the state of the union video they released, my bad.
No worries. Thanks for updating us on the story with the new article!
How was what happened to Gawker "scary" for real journalism? If they hadn't committed a crime, they wouldn't have been taken down. That's the extent of what happened. It hasn't repeated itself, at all. And really sets no precedent because despite everything Gawker themselves would have been perfectly fine if they had been the appropriate insured, like every reputable, or not, journalist entity in the world. CNN or NYT or the Post could publish Trump prostitute tapes without needing to fear repercussions.
The implication is that if you have enough money, any sort of journalism can be stamped out. That's the scary precedent.
Not really? Gawker was actually in the wrong so it's not that at all.
I feel as though people here would think differently if the sex tapes featured a woman and if gawker were a right wing rag rather than a left wing rag.
They were in the wrong, but that wasn't the point of what's bad about it. The precedent was set that if you have enough money, and you can stamp out a publication, no matter how large, if you want to.
It's got nothing to do with who was right and wrong, that's tangential to the real issue.
Has any legit publication been "stamped out" ever since? Are the Post or the NYT or even CNN being mindful of the Trump administration? Did you even read my whole post? Your argument literally has no legs to stand on. You're making up a ridiculous fantasy in your mind that isn't reflected in reality.
Sure, there's some. You're really getting agitated though so I'll just bow out. No big deal.
Crazy people make for entertaining friends. Being friends with somebody doesn't mean you automatically agree with them on everything.
In fact... they obviously disagree on most things.
This lawsuit set no precedent. You could always sue the media for being malicious, slanderous and invasive.
They also had other lawsuits to deal with because of their low standards.
People are using legal language so loosely.
Gawker were not prosecuted - they did not commit a criminal offense.
And the ruling wasn't to shut Gawker down. It was for them to pay compensation, damages and legal fees of the other side.
If this case isn't an example of egregious abuse of power, I don't know what case could be considered as one.
Edit: I will add this as well, this isn't to say that you are able to raise concerns about media being potentially targeted etc. Those are completely valid. And it is splitting hairs to say that they were asked to pay compensation over being shut down. But, for the sake of clarity I thought it was worth saying.
Gawker were not prosecuted - they did not commit a criminal offense.
And the ruling wasn't to shut Gawker down. It was for them to pay compensation, damages and legal fees of the other side.
If this case isn't an example of egregious abuse of power, I don't know what case could be considered as one.
Edit: I will add this as well, this isn't to say that you are able to raise concerns about media being potentially targeted etc. Those are completely valid. And it is splitting hairs to say that they were asked to pay compensation over being shut down. But, for the sake of clarity I thought it was worth saying.
Last edited:
