121
Hulk Hogan dead at 71
(consequence.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2025
121 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13949 readers
825 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
"Empowered" the already influental billionaire? meh.
The lawsuit set a precedent that allowed billionaires with no direct involvement outside of a personal vendetta to act as a third party funder to destroy a media outlet
This was challenged, as the hogan lawsuit was one of several that thiel funded (discreetly, I might add)
And as a result we lost more gonzo journalism. Gawker may have sucked but they weren’t the only casualty of this. As a result media companies shifted away from “expose” journalism out of fear oligarchs would destroy them, exactly as thiel had.
It no longer matters if they come at the oligarchs directly. They just need to piss them off.
I mean, we still have the onion, still have the daily show, still have (had) colbert, still have an innumerable amount of satire blogs and publications. I think it's a misjudgment to extrapolate what happened to gawker to the industry as a whole, they fucked up bad.
Those are soft, they don’t do “expose” style gonzo shit
Ken klippenstein, pro publica, bad news, hell gate, channel 5, stuff like that does still exist but for the most part they don’t have the reach or funding that sites like gawker and deadspin did. They certainly don’t have the reach and funding that sanitized libshit like Colbert does
ah the sex pest
hmmm ok I didn't know I needed to consume 'hard' media lol although I did prefer mr. Callaghan before he was reading his corporate sponsor reel before his 'hard' hitting reports 😜
If you’re gonna discredit him for having corporate sponsors but plug the fucking daily show and Colbert, which are legacy corpo media that are undoubtedly beholden to advertisers (why else did Colbert change his persona so drastically), and the onion, which is literally owned by private equity and has had several editors leave over conflicts with leadership (see the section “staff conflicts with leadership”)
By not being private equity owned if one of his corporate sponsors asks for censorship he can at least tell them to fuck off, which Colbert cannot dream of doing. He is beholden to advertisers
But to your point he has had credible sexual assault allegations so he is maybe not the best example on the list. That LA coverage was good tho
I did that because you put him on your list of 'hard' media so I was shining a light on your hypocrisy. About Stewart, Colbert, et al I mentioned originally, it's ok to enjoy some jokes about the current state of the world and not expect 'hard' journalism. I don't go into an episode of Drunk History and expect an expose on Stalin post war. I follow John Stewart's podcast and have found the conversations to be honest, frank and informative. I see what he has done for 9-11 survivors and veterans, even the farm he runs, and I get the sense he is a genuine guy and not a corporate stooge.
His furry convention coverage was top tier.
War criminals.
Mostly war losers as of late, in terms of the brass. Average veteran was just a dude looking for free college imho.
I don’t think Stewart is a corporate stooge but my point was I also don’t think he is going to do exposes ala getting on the front lines or digging deep to find corruption. He’s not going to connect with sources to help leak information. He’s not going to the riots to see what is actually happening.
He is “soft” in that his role is, and always has, been commentary. When your role is only commentary I expect you to comment on big issues, especially when your platform is huge.
I think to when Occupy Wall Street happened - Stewart had a GIGANTIC platform at the time. While he was somewhat supportive of the movement he was also somewhat mocking at the same time. He straddled the line. At a critical time when the movement was shaky and support from a huge media figure like him could have made a tremendous difference he chose to play it safe, likely to protect his cushy existence. Or maybe he evolved, his rhetoric in recent years has certainly been much more pro labor