> What needs to happen now, if the big media companies want to defend their constitutional protections, is that some media company that isn't Gawker and doesn't behave in the same recklessly malicious manner needs to win a case.
Which costs millions. Who should foot the bill for that?
> Thereby confirming that the actual details of the Gawker trial are in fact relevant and so long as they act like sincere, responsible journalists who treat their 1st amendment protections with a modicum of respect and humility, they don't have to worry about a jury slapping them with a $140 million punishment.
They only have to worry about spending millions on lawyers to argue the cases!
It's not just that media outlets are afraid of losing the cases. As a media outlet, if you have to argue the case in front of a jury, you've already lost. It's better from a financial risk point of view to just not publish anything that might get you sued.
The issue with the Gawker case is that it has encouraged rich celebrity plaintiffs with little to lose to sue media outlets, who stand to suffer significant financial losses even if they win the case. R. Kelly is willing to lose a million dollars for a chance to save his reputation, which is worth far more than that to him. A media outlet isn't willing to lose a million dollars to a piece that'll earn far less than that in revenue. Hence the media self-censors.
> Which costs millions. Who should foot the bill for that?
Presumably, the world-famous multimedia behemoth willing to assume the risk of getting sued in order to publish newsworthy truth.
In this case, it'll be Buzzfeed, since they're the organization with the courage to publish the story. And they ought to have the support of people who believe in their cause, the way Thiel believed in Bollea's.
> As a media outlet, if you have to argue the case in front of a jury, you've already lost.
At some point defending against defamation has to become part of the cost of doing business for a world-famous multimedia behemoth. Buzzfeed stands to profit a great deal at the expense of R Kelly by publishing such a salacious story. Not only do they profit for the story itself, but an exclusive like that could grow their permanent audience.
> The issue with the Gawker case is that it has encouraged rich celebrity plaintiffs with little to lose to sue media outlets.
Is this true, though, or is it just the desired narrative? How do we know that the Hogan decision will have made a difference on whether R Kelly decides to sue? How do you assert that engaging in a protracted civil litigation is "nothing to lose" for a celebrity?
Celebrity net worth pegs R Kelly at $150 million. A 2015 investment from NBCUniversal put Buzzfeed's valuation at 1.5 billion.
> Hence the media self-censors.
Media self-censors all the time. Big media companies are incredibly risk-averse. A sob story about a journalist enduring the intense pain of having to shop a story around to several different publications until finally one picked it up, wouldn't be news except that the media companies all want to frame themselves as poor victims of the Hogan decision, which they hate because it means they must be ever so slightly less reckless when destroying the lives of their subjects.
> Presumably, the world-famous multimedia behemoth willing to assume the risk of getting sued in order to publish newsworthy truth.
So, therefore, smaller companies that can't afford to pay should decline to publish anything that could offend anyone rich and powerful? Was Susan Fowler, for example, in the wrong for publishing the allegations against Uber earlier this year, because she was not "a world-famous multimedia behemoth"?
> Buzzfeed stands to profit a great deal at the expense of R Kelly by publishing such a salacious story.
Evidently most media outlets disagreed with that calculus. That's why this was a story to begin with.
> Celebrity net worth pegs R Kelly at $150 million. A 2015 investment from NBCUniversal put Buzzfeed's valuation at 1.5 billion.
The cost to R. Kelly: Hundreds of millions of opportunity cost. Millions of dollars in legal fees from victims.
The cost to BuzzFeed (or whoever) of declining to take on a story: A million dollars in opportunity cost, tops?
I'm probably hugely overestimating the benefit for BuzzFeed to try to be as fair to your point as possible, and the numbers still don't add up.
> Is this true, though, or is it just the desired narrative? How do we know that the Hogan decision will have made a difference on whether R Kelly decides to sue?
The media sure thinks it does, and that is the problem.
> Media self-censors all the time. Big media companies are incredibly risk-averse.
You've correctly identified the issue here.
> A sob story about a journalist enduring the intense pain of having to shop a story around to several different publications until finally one picked it up, wouldn't be news except that the media companies all want to frame themselves as poor victims of the Hogan decision, which they hate because it means they must be ever so slightly less reckless when destroying the lives of their subjects.
Hold on. R. Kelly is not the victim in this case. If the story is true, the victims are the people R. Kelly abused. It would have been a huge injustice for the story to be self-censored out of existence and for the victims' voices to go unheard! How would you feel about this story if you knew a victim?
We aren't talking about random media vindictiveness. There is a reason why journalists go to so much effort to do this research, often at a personal cost.
It doesn't just criticize Gawker, of course, because it's focused on press freedom in general. That's because press freedom is a right, not some kind of privilege that can be taken away from everybody if one actor "abuses" it.
Which costs millions. Who should foot the bill for that?
> Thereby confirming that the actual details of the Gawker trial are in fact relevant and so long as they act like sincere, responsible journalists who treat their 1st amendment protections with a modicum of respect and humility, they don't have to worry about a jury slapping them with a $140 million punishment.
They only have to worry about spending millions on lawyers to argue the cases!
It's not just that media outlets are afraid of losing the cases. As a media outlet, if you have to argue the case in front of a jury, you've already lost. It's better from a financial risk point of view to just not publish anything that might get you sued.
The issue with the Gawker case is that it has encouraged rich celebrity plaintiffs with little to lose to sue media outlets, who stand to suffer significant financial losses even if they win the case. R. Kelly is willing to lose a million dollars for a chance to save his reputation, which is worth far more than that to him. A media outlet isn't willing to lose a million dollars to a piece that'll earn far less than that in revenue. Hence the media self-censors.