Comments on: How Much Did Gawker Pay For Proof Balloon Boy Was A Hoax?

By: abesauer

abesauer — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:07:25 +0000

For example, knowing Gawker paid for the exclusive makes your recently posted and otherwise great piece hard to digest from the title alone: “Deflated: Balloon Boy’s the Story of Our Ugly, Sorry Era.” And the fact that you implicate Gawker doesn;t mean anything more than when Tucker Max starts every insulting statement “I know I’m a dick, but…”

By: abesauer

abesauer — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:02:53 +0000

“that Gawker still does…”

By: abesauer

abesauer — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:02:08 +0000

There may be many. But they will be fewer.

Again, so the excuse boils down to “everyone’s doing it.” Smashing. The reason it rankles worse with Gawker is the same as why having a tea-partying birther nut as your brother is worse than it being just some stranger. Plus, it gives all of the other great original media reporting and investigation that Gawker the slight flavor of hypocrisy.

By: Foster Kamer

Foster Kamer — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:47:50 +0000

Oh, and: unless that pejorative is “shady.” Because it’s a fun word to say.

By: Foster Kamer

Foster Kamer — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:46:48 +0000

Sometimes, pay journalism generates revenue. Journalism can’t be supported without revenue. The best investigative reporters in the country are going down because their papers aren’t getting any revenue. The site gains credibility with every story it gets right. You think stories haven’t been suppressed by cash previous to now? Not being able to generate revenue is why the New York Times and the Washington Post* are going broke, and why they can’t produce the next reporters who can fish out the next Deep Throat.

The truth sets things free. Some people will put a price on it. Others–and there are many–won’t. But the difference in between Deep Throat and The Balloon Boy Papers is pretty wide. Richard Wolffe talking about health care on MSNBC, Fox News exisiting, the head of ProPublica running a “non-profit” for investigative reporting and taking home under half a mil a year, and Dan Abrams owning a media consulting company and a media reporting website: those are the things I’m concerned about. But reducing them to pejoratives doesn’t help anyone.

*Aside from the times they try to get lobbyists to pay for off the record dinners with their reporters. That’s not evil.

By: abesauer

abesauer — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:09:59 +0000

The question about amount was rhetorical.

And neither does the possibility of the tips being bullshit or not. That’s just a possible bummer side thing (i.e. encourages people to exaggerate).

The real problem for everyone else who practices no-pay journalism is that it increases the chances that potential story sources will expect money or only speak with outlets that they think might pay them. You mention credibility. In the long run how do you think Gawker’s credibility is impacted by this? And yes, I will call it evil. And yes: more and more pubs are doing it. Suppose that qualifies as a defense. So, then, congratulations(???). I look forward to a media-industrial complex landscape where stories are paid for by the one with the most cash and then never see the light of day. We’re that much closer.

As for your use of quotations to sum up my position: You might want to employ a set of those bad boys around “smart” as it pertains to business.

By: Foster Kamer

Foster Kamer — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:11:31 +0000

Why would he not say how much he paid? So other people wouldn’t be able to use it as negotiating leverage against him in future negotiations. This isn’t a conspiracy or a cover-up. Call it evil or cast bad juju on them not talking, whatever. It’s just smart business. As for a tip maybe being bullshit, if that’s the case, the site lose credibility, which is a bigger loss in the long run than however much my bosses paid for an individual tip. I think they vette them to the best of their ability given the speed in which they want to get tips up. With that in mind, simplifying it to a “Gawker will pay for bullshit tips that by ejecting into the ether will make the world worse, and sketchily not tell us how much they paid for them, too!” argument is relatively disingenuous.

By: abesauer

abesauer — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:00:15 +0000

Denton (purportedly) loves transparency so why not say how much it was? And BI is right. It’s the buying of the silence as much as the buying of the story that is the story here. Take a minute to think about the ramifications of that. Also, note that Gawker’s sporting cousin Deadspin was recently self-righteously indignant over TMZ pulling a similar stunt re: Erin Andrews http://abesauer.com/2009/10/04/deadspins-bamboozling-tmz-coverage/

By: Foster Kamer

Foster Kamer — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 16:52:52 +0000

I’ve been told it was enough to at least buy one’s self a decent lunch, and also, a taxi to their next destination. At least.

By: Joe Callan

Joe Callan — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 16:19:32 +0000

“Bringing in child services”?

If my dad had orchestrated a hoax to fool every idiot reporter that can’t calculate the weight of the average 6-year-old child vs. the buoyancy of a weather balloon, he would be my hero forever. This is clearly a case of the authorities being pissed that they were made to look like fools.

Just like the “Boston Bomb Scare”–in which Boston Authorities all wet themselves over a bunch of Lite-Brites depicting characters from a nonsensical cable animation show–this is another case of people in the position of authority not using one ounce of common sense before running up a tab by going on a massive crusade that ended up going national in the media.

Want to be outraged against something, people? We’ve got plenty of ACTUAL problems in this country.

Richard Heene is our royal jester, and he did a fine job. Give the dude a medal.