Gawker.com goes to Kickstarter.

[Mister Cheese]

Oh boy! I can't wait for this website to come back!

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...token=377c3395

About

Gawker isn't gone, it’s up for auction. The person who drove the site into bankruptcy wants to buy it.

We're a group of former Gawker Media employees across editorial, tech, and business, and we want to put in our own bid to buy it back.

We believe the site can thrive in an entirely membership funded model.

The person who wants to buy it? You mean the guy who was yanked out of the closet for no other reason than for clicks and just wants to buy the domain name for no other reason than to see it burn?

Why care?

Many stories that Gawker began to pursue years ago are finally getting the widespread attention they deserve. Stories about Bill Cosby. Kevin Spacey. Louis CK. Harvey Weinstein. Terry Richardson. James Toback. Bill O'Reilly. Roger Ailes. Donald Trump.

Gawker knew.

Gawker was willing to chase stories that other outlets considered too risky or salacious. But the truth is often inconvenient, and Gawker's work isn't done. We want to dig deeper. By setting ourselves up as an ownerless, advertiser-less, non-profit media organization, the editorial team will be able to do what they do best.

More than a dozen Gawker Media alumni are involved in this project.

Many of them are otherwise employed and we can't disclose their names just yet, but we can tell you Gawker.com's Founding Editor Elizabeth Spiers is advising and will be joining the board of directors.

If we don't raise enough money to buy the site, we will preserve the archive and launch a new publication under a different name. We're bringing this back whether we have the Gawker URL or not.

So if you miss Gawker like we do and feel like supporting our mission, become a member, tell your friends, share this project, and send us your tips. We have work to do.

I'm just gonna point out the obvious stuff. Anyone who is running this campaign will probably lose their job immediately. Their boss finds out that they're gonna jump ship to go on to the tax free charity train to make bank doesn't look good. Especially for Gawker. Which is why they don't have their names attached to it. As for them talking about the sexual abuse allegations.. a broken clock can still be right twice a day. They threw allegations against everyone, threw lots of people under the bus, including Hulk Hogan, the guy who ruined them. Amazing. I can't wait to see this crash and burn.

[dwarven]

We're coming back

No they aren't.

[Chinese Bootlickers]

Time for Hulkmania 2.0?

[Lochton]

What is/was Gawker now again?

[AwkwardSquirtle]

What is/was Gawker now again?

From wikipedia: (Gawker)...promoted itself as "the source for daily Manhattan media news and gossip."... Gawker came under scrutiny for posting videos, communications and other content that violated copyrights or the privacy of its owners, or was illegally obtained. In particular...a sex tape featuring Hulk Hogan

[Lochton]

From wikipedia: (Gawker)...promoted itself as "the source for daily Manhattan media news and gossip."... Gawker came under scrutiny for posting videos, communications and other content that violated copyrights or the privacy of its owners, or was illegally obtained. In particular...a sex tape featuring Hulk Hogan

Right, so, a dodgy site. Alrighty.

[Deleted]

I love any platform that gathers meaningless money to do meaningless things. "It's their job so I donate some $".

[Deleted]

Why can't they just open another blog? Seems fitting for their quality of "journalism".

[Daedius]

What a despicable company, hope it stays dead.

[Ryme]

What is/was Gawker now again?

One of those morally ambiguous sites depending on where the news gossip fell.

[Lochton]

One of those morally ambiguous sites depending on where the news gossip fell.

Yeah, read a bit about it. So, dodgy is one of the right descriptions.

[zealo]

Why can't they just open another blog? Seems fitting for their quality of "journalism".

Brand recognition.

They could, but it's more of a uphill battle starting all over again versus re-using the name "Gawker" if they can get legal hold of it.

[Independent voter]

Why care?

Many stories that Gawker began to pursue years ago are finally getting the widespread attention they deserve. Stories about Bill Cosby. Kevin Spacey. Louis CK. Harvey Weinstein. Terry Richardson. James Toback. Bill O'Reilly. Roger Ailes. Donald Trump.


So mostly sexual harassment stuff? Meh, do we really need that?

[Krigaren]

Yeah, read a bit about it. So, dodgy is one of the right descriptions.

Gawker was dodgy in terms of how they pursued stories, and the articles had a very specific and purposeful political-left bend, but they were far from "fake news". A lot of people hate Gawker due to their methods and because they were pretty relentless in chasing after stories that were "inconvenient" to have published, but for the most part their stuff was fact-based.

Sure, they had shit articles (like that "Day number 293 of this one chick's life" series), but a lot of it was Last Week Tonight or Daily Show level work, exposing really dirty underbellies and pissing a lot of people off in the process.

They were basically the kind of press that people say they want - journalists who were unafraid and were willing to publish the kind of dirty shit the MSM is too afraid to do or can't do, due to special interests - but that earned them a rep as essentially a shit-posting tabloid rag, regardless of how good a lot of their work really was.