Jaren Kerr is the managing editor of The Varsity, the University of Toronto's campus newspaper.
Independent media is becoming increasingly rare, with more and more publishers living under the umbrellas of corporate conglomerates or being backed by copious amounts of venture capital. Profitable independent media companies are even rarer, which is why the news that Gawker.com will no longer exist after Gawker Media was bought by Univision is disheartening.
Univision will acquire all of Gawker Media's properties, with the exception of its flagship site. It was speculated since the $140-million court ruling against Gawker Media that the namesake site would likely be disposed of by prospective buyers because of its baggage. This is unsurprising; Gawker had many faults. Several times in its 14-year existence, the website produced articles that brought dissent for what many considered cruel. One of the most high profile controversies was Gawker's publishing of a sex tape that featured Hulk Hogan – his real name is Terry Boella – and the wife of his friend. Billionaire Peter Thiel, who was allegedly outed as gay by the company's now-defunct blog, Valleywag, bankrolled the Hulk Hogan case against Gawker. Some may say that Gawker had it coming, but the reality that a rich and powerful figure can shut down a media company is chilling to the concept of a free press.
The details of the case and Thiel's role in it have been pondered and pontificated on for months, and now that Gawker is closing its doors, it is time to reflect on, if not mourn, a company that was a pioneer in online publishing.
At its best, Gawker was entertaining, self-reflexive, hilarious and critical. It took power head on, but with an admirable cheekiness; seriousness was for the criticized, not the critics. It made a big deal of minutiae and the mildly interesting, and stepped to its own beat, never overly concerned with the news cycle. The best Gawker was refreshingly raw. It also may have had the best comment sections online, on its distinct Kinja platform. Surprisingly, hilarity and insightfulness could be found below nearly every article, in an age where most comment sections are cesspools of nonsense and many publishers (including NPR very recently) have closed the comments completely. Some who write on the internet dread the comment sections on their articles; many Gawker writers engaged commenters enthusiastically, participating in wit, banter, and serious discussion.
All the good things about Gawker go back to its business model. Being profitable gave it a longevity and robustness that was rare to see in independent publishers, who most often operate on shoestring budgets and eventually shutter, like The Toast, an excellent blog which stopped publishing in July after three years. Gawker Media ran several blogs, from the sports-focused Deadspin to the tech-centered Gizmodo to its women's blog, Jezebel. Gawker Media could cover multiple interests on its different properties, which all shared a signature snark.
Arguably more important was their independence. With no outside investors or parent companies, no powerful person or entity was off-limits for ridicule and critique. There was no need to soften or whitewash reporting. There was no need to compromise editorial efforts for financial gain because there wasn't a distant executive ready to turn off the lights if profits dwindled. Independent media is only held to two things: its mission statement, and journalistic ethics; Gawker struggled with the latter at times.
In today's media landscape, such liberty is a great privilege and perhaps this freedom was a double-edged sword. There is a fine line between fearlessness and carelessness that, to some, Gawker crossed, and it lead to their demise. If not for their editorial mistakes, Gawker would still be one of the few financially healthy independent publishers around. Univision is acquiring all of Gawker Media's editorial staff.
These writers will find a home at a Univision property and continue to produce strong work, but they likely won't have the leeway to report without pulling any punches the way they did at Gawker, and that is a shame. While Gawker should be criticized for its errors, it should admired for its best work, the kind that readers may not see again for a while.