So realizing it was crap and abandoning it after the first draft opens him up to more criticism?

Except the original Birth of a Nation was relatively racist by the standards of it's day. And folks are capable of recognizing it's technical achievements separate from it's racism. Kind of like Triumph of the Will.

Yeah, but then they would have to serve "Meemosas" to be consistent.

I mean, it *could* be a different cocktail, perhaps made with vokda, tomota juice, and Worchester sauce…but I ain't drinking it.

Also, I can recommend a spell checker if they need one.

Well, everyone who *cared* knew he was an asshole before. Now people who don't care about coal industry drama know too.

Probably because everyone else LWT has covered knows that when someone's trying to sound the alarm on your shady practices, you don't scream and point at them.

The two things that actually got Gawker axed were outing a private citizen, and releasing a sex tape. They could talk about journalistic freedom all they wanted, but these were the actions that needed to be deemed protected speech if they were to continue functioning as a business.

What I LEARNED is that Gawker put itself in the position of arguing that leaking private sex tapes, for profit, is somehow vital to a functional democracy. Unsurprisingly, they failed to make that case.

The review clearly shows us how freedom of speech was hindered…in the LVRJ takeover. That it dismisses it as a distracting sideshow beside Gawker getting out-lawyered in a case where they thought they could out-lawyer the plaintiff is…odd.

Easiest way to do that in the U.S. would reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, though god only knows how that would be administered in the current political environment. Certifying which people's statements are valid, and which not, on the basis of who the person is rarely ends well.

While Thiel's actions show how a billionaire *could* bully an organization just for saying things he doesn't like, Gawker gave him an opening you could drive a truck through by publishing the Hogan sex tape. Meanwhile, the fate of the LVRJ is a clear cut case of a billionaire burying an outlet with his money solely…

Ah, but no one at Gawker had a personal reason to defame Hogan, only professional ones. Ergo, JOURNALISTIC FREEDOM, BABY!!!

Gawker's argument is that it *was too* journalism, as long as actual defensible journalism was being done under the same roof.

So what's to prevent someone from getting a journalism degree from one of these "humble community colleges", and then simply spreading the Breitbart party line with their "Official Real Journalist" certification giving it added authenticity?

That is assuming that this accreditation agency both awards accreditation in an evenhanded manner, and is trusted by the public to do so. Your solution to the "who can we trust" problem is to give us a group that tells us who to trust…but how do we know they're trustworthy?

If people don't trust real journalists, appointing an agency to give them "Official Real Journalist" stickers will not change that.

If this group is taken seriously, the public will come to believe people it accredits and disbelieve those it does not, turning it into a de facto arbiter of accepted truth.

Unfortunately, court cases have to rule based on the facts at hand and prior law.

So much this. Their final post before going under boiled down to "Our business model relies on grossly violating the privacy of minor celebrities for a profit. By changing the math so that is no longer possible, Peter Thiel is killing democracy."