Tag Archives: Media

Media Eco-Systems


CJR has done a fine piece of work here! They studied 1.25 million stories, published by 25,000 sources, between 4/15 and 11/16.

A few of the most choice insights:

“What we find in our data is a network of mutually-reinforcing hyper-partisan sites that revive what Richard Hofstadter called “the paranoid style in American politics,” combining decontextualized truths, repeated falsehoods, and leaps of logic to create a fundamentally misleading view of the world.”

“Take a look at Ending the Fed, which, according to Buzzfeed’s examination of fake news in November 2016, accounted for five of the top 10 of the top fake stories in the election. In our data, Ending the Fed is indeed prominent by Facebook measures, but not by Twitter shares. In the month before the election, for example, it was one of the three most-shared right-wing sites on Facebook, alongside Breitbart and Truthfeed.”

JCR note: take a look at www.endingthefed.com. I wasn’t even aware of it. Total scum reporting. If this website is even half as powerful as CJR says, we are in a world of hurt. For more on this, see Buzzfeed Commentary on End the Fed

“Use of disinformation by partisan media sources is neither new nor limited to the right wing, but the insulation of the partisan right-wing media from traditional journalistic media sources, and the vehemence of its attacks on journalism in common cause with a similarly outspoken president, is new and distinctive.”

“It is a mistake to dismiss these stories as “fake news”; their power stems from a potent mix of verifiable facts (the leaked Podesta emails), familiar repeated falsehoods, paranoid logic, and consistent political orientation within a mutually-reinforcing network of like-minded sites.”

“A remarkable feature of the right-wing media ecosystem is how new it is. Out of all the outlets favored by Trump followers, only the New York Post existed when Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980. By the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, only the Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh, and arguably Sean Hannity had joined the fray. Alex Jones of Infowars started his first outlet on the radio in 1996. Fox News was not founded until 1996. Breitbart was founded in 2007, and most of the other major nodes in the right-wing media system were created even later.”

And my own reflection is:

I am guilty, as usual, of assuming that revolutions of one time are revolutions for all time. What I mean is … I was so, so impressed with the social media revolution that arguably swept President Obama into the White House. That campaign’s ability to pivot quickly, disseminate their points social media ways, was a thing to behold!

What I failed to realize is that the NEXT revolution was following right on its heels! And, sadly, I think the Democratic Party missed it too.

The next revolution was the right wing social media eco-system, a complex fabric of sites that reinforced each other. Rather than spouting “fake news”, as the New York Enquirer did with regularity way back when, these sites specialized in disinformation.

And they came on the scene very recently – led by Breitbart. It is stunning to me how Breitbart nudged Fox News out of the center of the media eco-system in early 2016, and then invited them back into the center, along with them, as their views increasingly aligned. This has got to be one of the greatest media coups of all time, orchestrated by Breitbart News, whose leader is now in the White House.

====================STUDY FOLLOWS==================
Study: Breitbart-led right-wing media ecosystem altered broader media agenda
By Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris, Hal Roberts, and Ethan Zuckerman
MARCH 3, 2017

THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION SHOOK the foundations of American politics. Media reports immediately looked for external disruption to explain the unanticipated victory—with theories ranging from Russian hacking to “fake news.”

We have a less exotic, but perhaps more disconcerting explanation: Our own study of over 1.25 million stories published online between April 1, 2015 and Election Day shows that a right-wing media network anchored around Breitbart developed as a distinct and insulated media system, using social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world. This pro-Trump media sphere appears to have not only successfully set the agenda for the conservative media sphere, but also strongly influenced the broader media agenda, in particular coverage of Hillary Clinton.

While concerns about political and media polarization online are longstanding, our study suggests that polarization was asymmetric. Pro-Clinton audiences were highly attentive to traditional media outlets, which continued to be the most prominent outlets across the public sphere, alongside more left-oriented online sites. But pro-Trump audiences paid the majority of their attention to polarized outlets that have developed recently, many of them only since the 2008 election season.

Attacks on the integrity and professionalism of opposing media were also a central theme of right-wing media. Rather than “fake news” in the sense of wholly fabricated falsities, many of the most-shared stories can more accurately be understood as disinformation: the purposeful construction of true or partly true bits of information into a message that is, at its core, misleading. Over the course of the election, this turned the right-wing media system into an internally coherent, relatively insulated knowledge community, reinforcing the shared worldview of readers and shielding them from journalism that challenged it. The prevalence of such material has created an environment in which the President can tell supporters about events in Sweden that never happened, or a presidential advisor can reference a non-existent “Bowling Green massacre.”

We began to study this ecosystem by looking at the landscape of what sites people share. If a person shares a link from Breitbart, is he or she more likely also to share a link from Fox News or from The New York Times? We analyzed hyperlinking patterns, social media sharing patterns on Facebook and Twitter, and topic and language patterns in the content of the 1.25 million stories, published by 25,000 sources over the course of the election, using Media Cloud, an open-source platform for studying media ecosystems developed by Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society and MIT’s Center for Civic Media.

When we map media sources this way, we see that Breitbart became the center of a distinct right-wing media ecosystem, surrounded by Fox News, the Daily Caller, the Gateway Pundit, the Washington Examiner, Infowars, Conservative Treehouse, and Truthfeed.

Fig. 1: Media sources shared on Twitter during the election (nodes sized in proportion to Twitter shares).

(Chart not printed here)

Fig. 2: Media sources shared on Twitter during the election (nodes sized in proportion to Facebook shares).

(Chart not printed here) 

The most frequently shared media sources for Twitter users that retweeted either Trump or Clinton.

Notes: In the above clouds, the nodes are sized according to how often they were shared on Twitter (Fig. 1) or Facebook (Fig. 2). The location of nodes is determined by whether two sites were shared by the same Twitter user on the same day, representing the extent to which two sites draw similar audiences. The colors assigned to a site in the map reflect the share of that site’s stories tweeted by users who also retweeted either Clinton or Trump during the election. These colors therefore reflect the attention patterns of audiences, not analysis of content of the sites. Dark blue sites draw attention in ratios of at least 4:1 from Clinton followers; red sites 4:1 Trump followers. Green sites are retweeted more or less equally by followers of each candidate. Light-blue sites draw 3:2 Clinton followers, and pink draw 3:2 Trump followers.

Our analysis challenges a simple narrative that the internet as a technology is what fragments public discourse and polarizes opinions, by allowing us to inhabit filter bubbles or just read “the daily me.” If technology were the most important driver towards a “post-truth” world, we would expect to see symmetric patterns on the left and the right. Instead, different internal political dynamics in the right and the left led to different patterns in the reception and use of the technology by each wing. While Facebook and Twitter certainly enabled right-wing media to circumvent the gatekeeping power of traditional media, the pattern was not symmetric.

The size of the nodes marking traditional professional media like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN, surrounded by the Hill, ABC, and NBC, tell us that these media drew particularly large audiences. Their color tells us that Clinton followers attended to them more than Trump followers, and their proximity on the map to more quintessentially partisan sites—like Huffington Post, MSNBC, or the Daily Beast—suggests that attention to these more partisan outlets on the left was more tightly interwoven with attention to traditional media. The Breitbart-centered wing, by contrast, is farther from the mainstream set and lacks bridging nodes that draw attention and connect it to that mainstream.

Moreover, the fact that these asymmetric patterns of attention were similar on both Twitter and Facebook suggests that human choices and political campaigning, not one company’s algorithm, were responsible for the patterns we observe. These patterns might be the result of a coordinated campaign, but they could also be an emergent property of decentralized behavior, or some combination of both. Our data to this point cannot distinguish between these alternatives.

Another way of seeing this asymmetry is to graph how much attention is given to sites that draw attention mostly from one side of the partisan divide. There are very few center-right sites: sites that draw many Trump followers, but also a substantial number of Clinton followers. Between the moderately conservative Wall Street Journal, which draws Clinton and Trump supporters in equal shares, and the starkly partisan sites that draw Trump supporters by ratios of 4:1 or more, there are only a handful of sites. Once a threshold of partisan-only attention is reached, the number of sites in the clearly partisan right increases, and indeed exceeds the number of sites in the clearly partisan left. By contrast, starting at The Wall Street Journal and moving left, attention is spread more evenly across a range of sites whose audience reflects a gradually increasing proportion of Clinton followers as opposed to Trump followers. Unlike on the right, on the left there is no dramatic increase in either the number of sites or levels of attention they receive as we move to  more clearly partisan sites.

(Chart not printed here)

Sites by partisan attention and Twitter shares.

(Chart not printed here)

Sites by partisan attention and Facebook shares.
The primary explanation of such asymmetric polarization is more likely politics and culture than technology.

A remarkable feature of the right-wing media ecosystem is how new it is. Out of all the outlets favored by Trump followers, only the New York Post existed when Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980. By the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, only the Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh, and arguably Sean Hannity had joined the fray. Alex Jones of Infowars started his first outlet on the radio in 1996. Fox News was not founded until 1996. Breitbart was founded in 2007, and most of the other major nodes in the right-wing media system were created even later. Outside the right-wing, the map reflects a mixture of high attention to traditional journalistic outlets and dispersed attention to new, online-only, and partisan media.

The pattern of hyper-partisan attack was set during the primary campaign, targeting not only opposing candidates but also media that did not support Trump’s candidacy. In our data, looking at the most widely-shared stories during the primary season and at the monthly maps of media during those months, we see that Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Fox News were the targets of attack.

The first and seventh most highly-tweeted stories from Infowars.com, one of the 10 most influential sites in the right-wing media system.
The February map, for example, shows Fox News as a smaller node quite distant from the Breitbart-centered right. It reflects the fact that Fox News received less attention than it did earlier or later in the campaign, and less attention, in particular, from users who also paid attention to the core Breitbart-centered sites and whose attention would have drawn Fox closer to Breitbart. The March map is similar, and only over April and May will Fox’s overall attention and attention from Breitbart followers revive.

This sidelining of Fox News in early 2016 coincided with sustained attacks against it by Breitbart. The top-20 stories in the right-wing media ecology during January included, for example, “Trump Campaign Manager Reveals Fox News Debate Chief Has Daughter Working for Rubio.” More generally, the five most-widely shared stories in which Breitbart refers to Fox are stories aimed to delegitimize Fox as the central arbiter of conservative news, tying it to immigration, terrorism and Muslims, and corruption:
• The Anti-Trump Network: Fox News Money Flows into Open Borders Group;
• NY Times Bombshell Scoop: Fox News Colluded with Rubio to Give Amnesty to Illegal Aliens;
• Google and Fox TV Invite Anti-Trump, Hitler-Citing, Muslim Advocate to Join Next GOP TV-Debate;
• Fox, Google Pick 1994 Illegal Immigrant To Ask Question In Iowa GOP Debate;
• Fox News At Facebook Meeting Is Misdirection: Murdoch and Zuckerberg Are Deeply Connected Over Immigration.

The repeated theme of conspiracy, corruption, and media betrayal is palpable in these highly shared Breitbart headlines linking Fox News, Rubio, and illegal immigration.

As the primaries ended, our maps show that attention to Fox revived and was more closely integrated with Breitbart and the remainder of the right-wing media sphere. The primary target of the right-wing media then became all other traditional media. While the prominence of different media sources in the right-wing sphere vary when viewed by shares on Facebook and Twitter, the content and core structure, with Breitbart at the center, is stable across platforms. Infowars, and similarly radical sites Truthfeed and Ending the Fed, gain in prominence in the Facebook map.

(Chart not printed here)

October 2016 by Twitter shares

(Chart not printed here)

October 2016 by Facebook shares

These two maps reveal the same pattern. Even in the highly-charged pre-election month, everyone outside the Breitbart-centered universe forms a tightly interconnected attention network, with major traditional mass media and professional sources at the core. The right, by contrast, forms its own insular sphere.
The right-wing media was also able to bring the focus on immigration, Clinton emails, and scandals more generally to the broader media environment. A sentence-level analysis of stories throughout the media environment suggests that Donald Trump’s substantive agenda—heavily focused on immigration and direct attacks on Hillary Clinton—came to dominate public discussions.

Number of sentences in mainstream media that address Trump and Clinton issues and scandals.
Coverage of Clinton overwhelmingly focused on emails, followed by the Clinton Foundation and Benghazi. Coverage of Trump included some scandal, but the most prevalent topic of Trump-focused stories was his main substantive agenda item—immigration—and his arguments about jobs and trade also received more attention than his scandals.

Proportion of election coverage that discusses immigration for selected media sources.
While mainstream media coverage was often critical, it nonetheless revolved around the agenda that the right-wing media sphere set: immigration. Right-wing media, in turn, framed immigration in terms of terror, crime, and Islam, as a review of Breitbart and other right-wing media stories about immigration most widely shared on social media exhibits.
Immigration is the key topic around which Trump and Breitbart found common cause; just as Trump made this a focal point for his campaign, Breitbart devoted disproportionate attention to the topic.

Top immigration related stories from right wing media shared on Twitter or Facebook.
What we find in our data is a network of mutually-reinforcing hyper-partisan sites that revive what Richard Hofstadter called “the paranoid style in American politics,” combining decontextualized truths, repeated falsehoods, and leaps of logic to create a fundamentally misleading view of the world. “Fake news,” which implies made of whole cloth by politically disinterested parties out to make a buck of Facebook advertising dollars, rather than propaganda and disinformation, is not an adequate term. By repetition, variation, and circulation through many associated sites, the network of sites make their claims familiar to readers, and this fluency with the core narrative gives credence to the incredible.

Take a look at Ending the Fed, which, according to Buzzfeed’s examination of fake news in November 2016, accounted for five of the top 10 of the top fake stories in the election. In our data, Ending the Fed is indeed prominent by Facebook measures, but not by Twitter shares. In the month before the election, for example, it was one of the three most-shared right-wing sites on Facebook, alongside Breitbart and Truthfeed. While Ending the Fed clearly had great success marketing stories on Facebook, our analysis shows nothing distinctive about the site—it is simply part-and-parcel of the Breitbart-centered sphere.

And the false claims perpetuated in Ending the Fed’s most-shared posts are well established tropes in right wing media: the leaked Podesta emails, alleged Saudi funding of Clinton’s campaign, and a lack of credibility in media. The most Facebook-shared story by Ending the Fed in October was “IT’S OVER: Hillary’s ISIS Email Just Leaked & It’s Worse Than Anyone Could Have Imagined.” See also, Infowars’ “Saudi Arabia has funded 20% of Hillary’s Presidential Campaign, Saudi Crown Prince Claims,” and Breitbart’s  “Clinton Cash: Khizr Khan’s Deep Legal, Financial Connections to Saudi Arabia, Hillary’s Clinton Foundation Tie Terror, Immigration, Email Scandals Together.” This mix of claims and facts, linked through paranoid logic characterizes much of the most shared content linked to Breitbart. It is a mistake to dismiss these stories as “fake news”; their power stems from a potent mix of verifiable facts (the leaked Podesta emails), familiar repeated falsehoods, paranoid logic, and consistent political orientation within a mutually-reinforcing network of like-minded sites.

Use of disinformation by partisan media sources is neither new nor limited to the right wing, but the insulation of the partisan right-wing media from traditional journalistic media sources, and the vehemence of its attacks on journalism in common cause with a similarly outspoken president, is new and distinctive.

Rebuilding a basis on which Americans can form a shared belief about what is going on is a precondition of democracy, and the most important task confronting the press going forward. Our data strongly suggest that most Americans, including those who access news through social networks, continue to pay attention to traditional media, following professional journalistic practices, and cross-reference what they read on partisan sites with what they read on mass media sites.

To accomplish this, traditional media needs to reorient, not by developing better viral content and clickbait to compete in the social media environment, but by recognizing that it is operating in a propaganda and disinformation-rich environment. This, not Macedonian teenagers or Facebook, is the real challenge of the coming years. Rising to this challenge could usher in a new golden age for the Fourth Estate.

The election study was funded by the Open Society Foundations U.S. Program.  Media Cloud has received funding from The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Open Societies Foundations.

Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris, Hal Roberts, and Ethan Zuckerman are the authors. Benkler is a professor at Harvard Law School and co-director of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard; Faris is research director at BKC; Roberts is a fellow at BKC and technical lead of Media Cloud; and Zuckerman is director of the MIT Center for Civic Media.


Notes on Gawker

This aggregation of blog sites like gawker.com and lifehacker.com has a few underlying themes:

Examples are: gawker.com and lifehacker.com
Nick Denton is the founder (2002, after selling First Tuesday, a networking site for technologists). He is well known as an early proselytizer of Facebook. He is an Oxford graduate son of a Professor of Economics and a psychotherapist.
He started out as a “sweat shop for free lance bloggers” and now is a bit more civilized.
Reputation is one of being relentlessly transparent, and ruining many lives in the process.
They are mega controversial – they posted a video of Hulk Hogan havingg sex with a good friend’s wife, for example.
a ton of their traffic (approx 25%) comes from Facebook
Has a bunch of cool writers like Tom Scocca and Neetzam Zimmerman (viral internet guru)
NYT describes Gawker as having “an unwavering commitment to truth telling” or, less generously, “a relentless cynicism”

Article in Sunday NYT, June 14, 2015



Gawker Media is an online media company and blog network, founded and owned by Nick Denton and based in New York City. It is considered to be one of the most visible and successful blog-oriented media companies.[1] Incorporated in the Cayman Islands[2] As of March 2012, it is the parent company for eight different weblogs: Gawker.com, Deadspin, Lifehacker, Gizmodo, io9, Kotaku, Jalopnik, and Jezebel. All Gawker articles are licensed on a Creative Commons attribution-NonCommercial license. [1]

1 Revenue and traffic
2 History
2.1 Sourcecode breach
2.2 2011 redesign and traffic loss
2.3 Leaked script
2.4 Collective action
3 List of Gawker Media weblogs
3.1 Current
3.2 Licensed Australian weblogs
3.3 Weblogs formerly owned by Gawker
4 See also
5 References
6 External links

Revenue and traffic
While Denton does not go into detail over Gawker Media’s finances, he has downplayed the profit potential of blogs[2], declaring that “[b]logs are likely to be better for readers than for capitalists. While I love the medium, I’ve always been skeptical about the value of blogs as businesses”, on his personal site[3].
In an article in the February 20, 2006 issue of New York Magazine, Jossip founder David Hauslaib estimated Gawker.com’s annual advertising revenue to be at least $1 million, and possibly over $2 million a year.[4] Combined with low operating costs—mostly web hosting fees and writer salaries—Denton was believed to be turning a healthy profit by 2006.[5] In 2009, the corporation was estimated to be worth $300 million, with $60 million in advertising revenues and more than $30 million in operating profit.[3]

Gawker Media was originally incorporated in Budapest, Hungary, where a small company facility is still maintained. The company was headquartered at Nick Denton’s personal residence in the New York neighborhood of SoHo, and it remained there until 2008. That year he created a new base of operations in Nolita in Manhattan.[4]

On April 14, 2008, Gawker.com announced that Gawker Media had sold three sites: Idolator, Gridskipper, and Wonkette.

In a fall 2008 memo, Denton announced the layoff of “19 of our 133 editorial positions” at Valleywag, Consumerist, Fleshbot and other sites, and the hiring of 10 new employees for the most commercially successful sites—Gizmodo, Kotaku, Lifehacker, and Gawker—and others which were deemed to promise similar commercial success (Jezebel, io9, Deadspin, and Jalopnik).[5] Denton also announced the suspension of a bonus payment scheme based on pageviews, by which Gawker had paid $50,000 a month on the average to its staff, citing a need to generate advertising revenue as opposed to increasing traffic. He explained these decisions by referring to the 2008 credit crisis, but stated that the company was still profitable.[5] In September 2008, Gawker reported 274 million pageviews.[5]

On November 12, 2008, Gawker announced that Valleywag would fold into Gawker.com. The Consumerist was sold to Consumers Union, who took over the site on January 1, 2009. [6]

On February 22, 2009, Gawker announced that Defamer.com would fold into Gawker.com.[6]

In October 2009, Gawker Media websites were infected with malware in the form of fake Suzuki advertisements. The exploits infected unprotected users with spyware and crashed infected computer’s browsers. The network apologized by stating “Sorry About That. Our ad sales team fell for a malware scam. Sorry if it crashed your computer”.[7] Gawker shared the correspondence between the scammers and Gawker via Business Insider.[8]
On February 15, 2010, Gawker announced it had acquired CityFile, an online directory of celebrities and media personalities. Gawker’s Editor-in-Chief Gabriel Snyder announced that he was being replaced by CityFile editor Remy Stern.[7]

Sourcecode breach
On December 11, 2010, the Gawker group’s 1.3 million commenter accounts and their entire website source code was released by a hacker group named Gnosis.[9][10] Gawker issued an advisory notice stating: “Our user databases appear to have been compromised. The passwords were encrypted. But simple ones may be vulnerable to a brute-force attack. You should change your Gawker password and on any other sites on which you’ve used the same passwords”.[11] Gawker was found to be using DES-based crypt(3) password hashes with 12 bits of salt.[12] Security researchers found that password-cracking software “John the Ripper” was able to quickly crack over 50% of the passwords from those records with crackable password hashes.[12] Followers of Twitter accounts set up with the same email and password were spammed with advertisements.[13] The Gnosis group notes that with the source code to the Gawker content management system they obtained, it will be easier to develop new exploits.[14]

2011 redesign and traffic loss
As part of a planned overhaul of all Gawker Media sites,[15][16] on 1 February, 2011, some Gawker sites underwent a major design change as part of the larger roll-out. Most notable was the absence of heretofore present Twitter and StumbleUpon sharing buttons. Nick Denton explained that Facebook had been by far the biggest contributor to the sites’ traffic and that the other buttons cluttered the interface.[17] This decision lasted three weeks, after which the buttons were reinstated, and more added.[18]

On 7 February, 2011, the redesign was rolled out to the remainder of the Gawker sites. The launch was troubled due to server issues.[19][20] Kotaku.com and io9.com failed to load, displaying links but no main content, and opening different posts in different tabs didn’t work, either. [21] The new look emphasised images and de-emphasised the reverse chronological ordering of posts that was typical of blogs. The biggest change was the two-panel layout, consisting of one big story, and a list of headlines on the right. This was seen as an effort to increase the engagement of site visitors, by making the user experience more like that of television.[22] The site redesign also allowed for users to create their own discussion pages, on Gawker’s Kinja.[23] Many commenters largely disliked the new design, which was in part attributed to lack of familiarity.[20][24]
Rex Sorgatz, designer of Mediaite and CMO of Vyou, issued a bet that the redesigns would fail to bring in traffic, and Nick Denton took him up on it. The measure was the number of page views by October recorded on Quantcast.[25][26] Pageviews after the redesign declined significantly—Gawker’s sites saw an 80% decrease in overall traffic immediately after the change[27] and a 50% decrease over two weeks[28][29]—with many users either leaving the site or viewing international versions of the site, which hadn’t switched to the new layout.[30] On 28 February, 2011, faced with declining traffic, Gawker sites allowed for visitors to choose between the new design and the old design for viewing the sites.[31][32] Sorgatz was eventually determined to be the winner of the bet, as at the end of September, 2011, Gawker had only 500 million monthly views, not the 510 million it had had prior to the redesign. However, on 5 October, 2011, site traffic returned to its pre-redesign numbers,[33] and as of February 2012, site traffic had increased by 10 million over the previous year, according to Quantcast.[34] As of March 23, 2012, commenting on any Gawker site required signing in with a Twitter, Facebook, or Google account.[35]

Leaked script
In January 2014, Quentin Tarantino filed a copyright lawsuit against Gawker Media for distribution of his 146-page script for The Hateful Eight. He claimed to have given the script to one of six few trusted colleagues, including Bruce Dern, Tim Roth, and Michael Madsen.[36][37] Due to the spreading of his script, Tarantino told the media that he wouldn’t continue with the movie. “Gawker Media has made a business of predatory journalism, violating people’s rights to make a buck,” Tarantino said in his lawsuit. “This time they went too far. Rather than merely publishing a news story reporting that Plaintiff’s screenplay may have been circulating in Hollywood without his permission, Gawker Media crossed the journalistic line by promoting itself to the public as the first source to read the entire Screenplay illegally.”[38][39][40]

Collective action
On 22 June, 2013, unpaid interns brought a Fair Labor Standards Act action against Gawker Media and founder Nick Denton.[19][41] As plaintiffs, the interns claimed that their work at sites io9.com, Kotaku.com, Lifehacker.com and Gawker.TV was “central to Gawker’s business model as an Internet publisher,” and that Gawker’s failure to pay them minimum wage for their work therefore violated the FLSA and state labor laws. Although some interns had been paid, the court granted conditional certification of the collective action.[42][43]

In October 2014, a federal judge ruled that notices could be sent to unpaid interns throughout the company who could potentially want to join the lawsuit.[44]

List of Gawker Media weblogs[

• Cink – Hungarian
• Deadspin – Sports
• The Concourse – Music, food, sports-related pop culture
• Foodspin
• Regressing
• Screamer – Deadspin’s soccer hub
• Fittish
• Rabbithole
• Screengrabber
• The Stacks
• Adequate Man
• Gawker.com – New York City media and gossip, tabloid
• Valleywag – San Francisco, Silicon Valley and tech gossip
• Defamer
• Morning After
• Justice
• Internet
• Gawker Review of Books
• True Stories
• Domesticity
• The Vane
• Fortress America
• Antiviral
• Dog
• Sausage
• Black Bag
• Gizmodo – Gadget and technology lifestyle
• Sploid – News, futuristic ideas and tech
• Paleofuture
• Indefinitely Wild – Adventure Travel in the Outdoors with Wiley
• Field Guide
• Reframe
• Factually
• Toyland
• White Noise
• io9 – Science/Science Fiction
• Observation Deck
• Space
• Animals
• Toybox
• True Crime
• Jalopnik – Cars and automotive culture
• Buyer’s Guide
• Opposite Lock
• Foxtrot Alpha
• Truck Yeah – Trucks and truck culture
• Fightclub
• Car Buying
• Lanesplitter
• Drive
• Films
• Code 3
• Black Flag
• Jezebel – Celebrity, Sex, Fashion for women
• Kitchenette
• Millihelen
• Roygbiv
• Thats What She Said
• The Muse
• The Powder Room
• I Thee Dread
• Pictorial
• Flygirl
• Kotaku – Video games and East Asian pop culture
• The Bests
• Talk Amongst Yourselves
• Steamed
• Cosplay
• Pocket Monster
• Selects
• Lifehacker – Productivity tips
• Hackerspace
• After Hours
• Two Cents
• Workshop
• Vitals
• Skillet
• Shop Talk

Licensed Australian weblogs[edit]
• Gizmodo Australia – Gadgets and technology
• Kotaku Australia – Games and gaming industry coverage
• Lifehacker Australia – Tips, tricks, tutorials, hacks, downloads and guides

Weblogs formerly owned by Gawker[edit]
• Cityfile
• Consumerist – Consumer advocate: Now owned by Consumer Reports
• Fleshbot – Pornography: Now owned by editor Lux Alptraum
• Gawker Artists – Contemporary/Rising Art Registry [8]
• Gawker.TV – Television and online video
• Gridskipper – Travel: Now owned by Curbed Network
• Idolator – Music: Now owned by BuzzMedia
• Oddjack – Gambling
• Screenhead – Online video: Now unrelated film site
• Wonkette – Washington D.C. gossip and politics: Now independent

See also
• Weblogs, Inc.

1 ^ Gawker Media. Using Gawker Media Content
2 ^ Penenberg, Adam L. “Can Bloggers Strike It Rich?” Wired. September 22, 2005.
3 ^ Denton, Nick. “Nano Wars” March 8, 2005.[dead link]
4 ^ Thompson, Clive. “Blogs to Riches – The Haves and Have-Nots of the Blogging Boom” New York Magazine. February 20, 2006.
5 ^ Carr, David. “A Blog Mogul Turns Bearish on Blogs”, New York Times, July 3, 2006
6 ^ Pareene, Alex. “Memo: Gawker Sells Three Sites” April 14, 2008.
1 Jump up 
^ Gawker Media is the Goldman Sachs of the Internet, The Awl, July 27, 2009
2 Jump up 
^ Gardner, Eric (February 19, 2014) “Gawker to Quentin Tarantino: We’re Safely Based in the Cayman Islands”, Hollywood Reporter. (Retrieved 3-5-2014.)
3 Jump up 
^ McIntyre, Douglas A. (2009-11-10). “The Twenty-Five Most Valuable Blogs In America”. 24/7 Wall St. Retrieved 2009-11-10.
4 Jump up 
^ McGrath, Ben (18 October 2010). “Search and Destroy: Nick Denton’s blog empire”. The New Yorker (Condé Nast): 50–61. Retrieved 2011-01-21.
5 ^ Jump up to: 
a b c Owen Thomas: Valleywag cuts 60 percent of staff Valleywag, 3 October 2008
6 Jump up 
^ “Defamer Folds Into Gawker; Editors to Pursue Careers in Bearded Hip-Hop”. gawker.com. 2009-02-22. Retrieved 2009-03-23. |first1= missing |last1= in Authors list (help)
7 Jump up 
^ Popken, Ben (2009-10-27). “Gawker Duped By Malware Gang, Serves Up Infected Suzuki Ads”. The Consumerist. Retrieved 2010-04-27.
8 Jump up 
^ Blodget, Henry (2009-10-26). “Gawker Scammed By Malware Crew Pretending To Be Suzuki”. Business Insider. Retrieved 2010-04-27.
9 Jump up 
^ Techshrimp
10 Jump up 
^ “Gawker website Hacked by Gnosis ; Gnosis says they are not 4chan or Anonymous”. TechShrimp. 2010-12-12. Retrieved 2010-12-12.
11 Jump up 
^ “Commenting Accounts Compromised — Change Your Passwords”. Lifehacker. 2010-11-12. Retrieved 2010-12-12.
12 ^ Jump up to: 
a b “Brief Analysis of the Gawker Password Dump”. Duo Security. 2010-12-13. Retrieved 2010-12-18.
13 Jump up 
^ “Acai Berry spam attack connected with Gawker password hack, says Twitter | Naked Security”. Nakedsecurity.sophos.com. Retrieved 2012-11-15.
14 Jump up 
^ “Gnosis on Gawker Hack, Web Security”. Geekosystem. 2010-12-13. Retrieved 2012-11-15.
15 Jump up 
^ Salmon, Felix (2010-12-1). “The new Gawker Media”. Retrieved 2014-10-21. Check date values in: |date= (help)
16 Jump up 
^ Peterson, Latoya (2011-02-08). “How Gawker’s redesign subverts the scannable culture of the Internet it helped create”. Retrieved 2014-10-21.
17 Jump up 
^ McCarthy, Caroline (2011-02-01). “Twitter buttons disappear from Gawker redesign”. Retrieved 2014-10-21.
18 Jump up 
^ Jeffries, Adrianne (2011-02-25). “gawker redesign Gawker’s Ban on ‘Shiny Bauble’ Share Buttons Lasted One Week”. Retrieved 2014-10-21.
19 ^ Jump up to: 
a b Covert, James (2011-02-08). “Gawker Web redesign met with Bronx cheers”. Retrieved 2014-10-21.
20 ^ Jump up to: 
a b Romenesko, Jim (2014-02-28). “Denton: Gawker’s redesign more bruising than it needed to be”. Retrieved 2014-10-21.
21 Jump up 
^ LaCapria, Kim (2011-02-07). “Are you digging on the Gawker Media extreme makeover?”.
22 Jump up 
^ Mims, Christopher (2011-02-11). “Gawker.com’s Redesign is the Future of Gawker–Period”. Retrieved 2014-10-21.
23 Jump up 
^ Ellis, Justin (2011-02-12). “Jalopnik redesign shows how Gawker Media plans to open up blogging to its readers”. Retrieved 2014-10-21.
24 Jump up 
^ Leach, Anna (2011-03-29). “Rage against the redesign”. Retrieved 2014-10-21.
25 Jump up 
^ Garber, Megan (2011-02-07). ““It just feels inevitable”: Nick Denton on Gawker Media sites’ long-in-the-works new layout”. Retrieved 2014-10-21.
26 Jump up 
^ Observer Staff (2011-02-07). “Nick Denton Bets Cash Gawker Redesign Boosts Pageviews”. Retrieved 2014-10-21.
27 Jump up 
^ “Gawker’s Traffic Numbers Are Worse Than Anyone Anticipated – Nicholas Jackson”. The Atlantic. 2012-11-06. Retrieved 2012-11-15.
28 Jump up 
^ Schonfeld, Erick (2011-02-17). “Gawker’s Gulp Moment: Big Redesign Is Driving People Away”. Retrieved 2014-10-21.
29 Jump up 
^ De Rosa, Anthony (2011-03-03). “The rise and fall of Gawker media”. Retrieved 2014-10-21.
30 Jump up 
^ “Gawker.com Site Info”. Alexa.com. 2011-11-01. Retrieved 2012-11-15.
31 Jump up 
^ Stableford, Dylan (2014-02-28). “Gawker Admits Redesign Mistakes, Rolls Out Fixes”. Retrieved 2014-10-21.
32 Jump up 
^ Alvarez, Alex (2011-03-01). “Nick Denton Admits Gawker’s Redesign Wasn’t All They’d Hoped It Be”. Retrieved 2014-10-21.
33 Jump up 
^ Davis, Noah (2011-10-05). “Nick Denton Loses Bet That The Gawker Redesign Wouldn’t Hurt Traffic”. Retrieved 2014-10-23.
34 Jump up 
^ Olanoff, Drew (2012-02-02). “Remember that Gawker redesign? A year’s worth of data says it worked”. Retrieved 2014-10-21.
35 Jump up 
^ “Transitioning Your Commenting Account: The FAQ”. Lifehacker.com. 2012-03-23. Retrieved 2012-11-15.
36 Jump up 
^ Quentin Tarantino sues Gawker over Hateful Eight script leak – Arts & Entertainment – CBC News
37 Jump up 
^ Gettell, Oliver (January 22, 2014). “Quentin Tarnatino mothballs ‘Hateful Eight’ after script leak”. Los Angeles Times. Tribune Company. Retrieved January 27, 2014.
38 Jump up 
^ Gardner, Eriq (27 January 2014). “Quentin Tarantino Suing Gawker Over Leaked ‘Hateful Eight’ Script (Exclusive)”. Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 27 January 2014.
39 Jump up 
^ Shotwell, James (27 January 2014). “QUENTIN TARANTINO SUING GAWKER FOR SHARING LEAKED ‘HATEFUL EIGHT’ SCRIPT”. Under the Gun Review. Retrieved 27 January 2014.
40 Jump up 
^ O’Connell, Sean (27 January 2014). “Quentin Tarantino Sues Gawker Over The Hateful Eight Script Leak”. Cinema Blend. Retrieved 27 January 2014.
41 Jump up 
^ Smythe, Christie (2013-06-22). “Gawker’s Unpaid Interns Sue After Fox Searchlight Ruling”. Retrieved 2014-10-21.
42 Jump up 
^ Gardner, Eriq. “Gawker Hit With Class Action Lawsuit by Former Interns”. Retrieved 2014-10-21.
43 Jump up 
^ Smith, Allen (2014-08-20). “Gawker Faces Collective Action by Unpaid Interns”. Retrieved 2014-10-21.
44 Jump up 
^ The HR Specialist: New York Employment Law (2014-10-19). “Gawker is latest target of unpaid intern class action”. Retrieved 2014-10-21.

External links
• Gawker Media
• Tom Zeller, Jr.. “A Blog Revolution? Get a Grip”, New York Times, May 8, 2005 (registration required)
• Vanessa Grigoriadis, “Everybody Sucks: Gawker and the rage of the creative underclass, New York magazine, October 22, 2007
• v t e
Gawker Media

• Gawker.com Gizmodo Kotaku Jalopnik Lifehacker Deadspin Jezebel io9 Valleywag

Nick Denton sites
• Kinja

Sold by Gawker
• Fleshbot Idolator Wonkette Consumerist

• Charlie Jane Anders Ana Marie Cox Brian Crecente Nick Denton George Dvorsky Emily Gould Maura Johnston Brian Lam David Lat Will Leitch Annalee Newitz Alex Pareene Max Read Tim Rogers Peter Rojas Elizabeth Spiers Owen Thomas Gina Trapani Ray Wert Neetzan Zimmerman