Home Artists Posts Import Register

Content

Hey All,


With tomorrow morning's episode locked-and-loaded, I figured I'd take a quick moment to stop here through Patreon and let you know of a documentary I watched a couple of nights ago, one that a few of you recommended to me (both here and on social media), and one that I think may be worth a view.


The documentary is called Nobody Speak: Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and Trials of a Free Press, and it's about -- as you may have guessed -- Gawker's trial with Hulk Hogan over the leaked sex tape. It's a Netflix-exclusive, as far as I know.


First, the positive. The documentary is interesting, lengthy (at nearly 90 minutes), and gives some good, primary sourced glimpses into what happened, specifically from the biased Gawker perspective, as well as the neutral-to-biased-for-Gawker journalist and activist perspectives. Regardless of how you feel about Gawker (I hated 'em), it's cool to get the perspectives of those involved in the fracas.


The negatives tend to revolve around some of what I mentioned in the paragraph above, specifically the bias. The reason why I loved The Red Pill so much, as an example, was because it was brutally honest and quite balanced. It let you draw your own conclusions after presenting evidence and facts for you to ponder over. This documentary is way more activist in nature, and clearly takes a side. There's room for those kinds of docs, of course, and I even like some of 'em, but I wanted this one to be a little more buttoned-up.


The other negative is that it's basically two documentaries in one. In reality, the Gawker side of the documentary could have been 50 minutes long. The "other part" of the documentary is something I won't spoil for you, and makes some sense in context, but was still something I felt was rather extraneous to the Gawker story, and perhaps would be a subject more interesting and deserving (or at least as interesting and deserving) of a documentary than the main plot.

I'll leave it up to you to ascertain what you think, but I figured I'd put it on your radar if it wasn't already there. Have a good night! -Colin

Comments

That black guy

The way it presents the information was wayyy too much giving gawker the benefit of doubt /hogan's team the malicious intent and avoided many of the impropriety of the situation that got gawker to that situation

Jakeytar

This is awesome, I was the one who asked you in the AMA! So glad you watched it!

James Schubert

Bloody Netflix isn't allowed via the wifi im using on an oil platform. Can't watch this till my return and it's killing me. That said, I'm really enjoying the discussions that come from this book club style encouragement to consume media. I'm wondering if Colin would consider a live tweet, watch along or even a youtube stream along with a discussion board. Once a month to sit down together as an free community to chat and pass comment on someone's art and opinion would be pretty cool.

Anonymous

I watched this when it first came out. While I do agree that there is a bias, I wouldn't necessarily say that it's fully towards Gawker in particular. It seems to have an overall tilt just towards the dangers of censoring via the legal system, as long as someone has enough money and/or influence. I honestly think the other story was meant to portray that a bit more, though it did come off as a little awkward. In the end though I do find it encouraging to see a documentary out there for people who may not realize that the problem was never about the content that was released by Gawker, but rather the reaction and results.

Jeshua Anderson

I watched this about a week ago. I thought it was very interesting. It did have me feeling two ways. On one hand Gawker deserved to die, and painting it as a sympathetic victim was a bit much, but the other portion of the documentary did have me feeling that we have entered a dangerous time media wise.

BettyAnn Moriarty

Thanks, bud. I'm loving the documentary recommendations - they're quite interesting - and will take a look tonight. 😉

LastStandMedia

Live Tweeting or a live discussion (stream) of some sort is possible, but not any time imminently.

LastStandMedia

The major divide for me is if something is newsworthy, or just personally destructive. It's a balance between the sacred freedom of the press and a person's ultimate right to have privacy. It's tough. But fuck Gawker.

LastStandMedia

Yeah, the whole thing about the Nevada paper was really something interesting, possibly even moreso than the Gawker angle.

Anonymous

I'm curious though, isn't the decision to publish something provided by a third party just an ethical one? And wouldn't the privacy issue then be directed towards that third party, who is technically the one who violated it? I'm not well versed in journalism ethics laws, so I may be misunderstanding, or at the very least being somewhat idealistic...

Jim Leggat

I watched it and at times I was well this could be good but it felt like the rabbit hole and the bias left me wonder what exactly did I just watch. As I am writing this I am thinking maybe the doc was so Meta that they mad a clickbate doc to in a reverse physiology kinda way make you (by you here I mean the general viewer) dislike gawker, but that could just be my brain attempting to find logic were it is lacking. It is sad that when the piece is about the site that to me is the post child for why we got to were we are today of why things went from News media to editorial media but this was 100% and editorial doc not a news doc which could have been special. They had an opportunity to take a piece that could have long term brought back the huge important of journalism and sure it does not get the numbers it is likely getting right now but a few years from now or even 50 years from now it could have been something people direct others at a doc to emulate and celebrate it's importance. To me it gets some play for a few months than is rarely brought up. If I sound a bit upset by this doc I ultimately am for 2 reasons first anytime I see something that with a bit more real time and effort could have gone from a pile of crap to a masterpiece which this felt like it could have been (they likely felt in the trap of sticking to the narrative they had laid out before the doc rather than letting the doc provide the narrative for them like 99% of good docs do). The other reason is it left me feeling kinda dirty then backing a company that in that piece even was proud of sensationalizing things and putting a negative statement just for views so showed they only cared about the dollar, not about the reader not about who the piece would effect and ultimately the massive negative impact they were having on society as a whole. Of course I say these things about the company in general rather than the few high quality employees they had. I know money in news has historically about getting the "scoop" and writing titles to get people to read what you are selling but if a scoop back in the day bypassed due diligence that company, writer and editor would have been lambasted and not so crazy for someone to be fired for it, and it also at least growing up it seemed news reporters left their bias at the door and left that for editorials. The effects of both these things being ignored today is first people being massively damaged by inaccurate reporting and the worse effect for me creates a giant divide amongst people crafting an echo chamber for what is sold as news creates more secure finances since it makes the people there feel better about themselves since X news organization always reaffirms there beliefs. Apologies if this felt like random tangents to anyone I had watched this almost at the time of release so had been marinating on my thoughts on this as it relates to were our society is at today.

Ian Andrews

Thanks brother