Although fairly interesting, it's very muddled and unfocused, and very biased. Lots of interviews with the press-side, hearing their opinions, but nothing but others footage from anyone else making for a very one sided argument. No matter who is right or wrong, it makes for a very biased film.
74 Reviews
Problematic defense of the First Amendment
Mr-Fusion24 July 2017
For the most part, this is an engaging documentary. But despite its marketing, "Nobody Speak" isn't really about the Bollea v. Gawker case. Sure, the trial gets plenty of screen time (in all its salacious and uncomfortable glory) but this is really about behind-the-scenes funding; the billionaire with a grudge against Gawker, the baron who buys out the Las Vegas newspaper to suppress unfavorable reporting. These are moneyed villains that beg to be reviled. Even His Trumpness is involved in a final segment that feels wholly supplemental) after waging a war on "Fake News".
The movie loses steam when it moves away from Peter Thiel and Gawker (its strongest segment) to broaden the support of the Fourth Estate. But on the whole, it's not bad.
6/10
The movie loses steam when it moves away from Peter Thiel and Gawker (its strongest segment) to broaden the support of the Fourth Estate. But on the whole, it's not bad.
6/10
A let down
vaivhav24 June 2017
With the attractive tailor, I was hoping this would be an enlightening documentary on how the press has stoped to function in our neo libertarian society but it turned out mostly like an advert for Gawker media and the people who hurt them, lightly and indirectly reminding us of the power of politicians and businesses to influence free press, while showing the people of the press in a good light. To be honest, the press itself is corrupt and this film stayed clear from that topic, how news and media are as interconnected to the businesses and political powers that run the show, and editors as as much to blame for misguiding the pawn citizen in this global game of the people in power to become wealthier and more powerful. If you really want to see something eye-opening, the whole nexus of lies we live in, go watch Requiem for an American Dream.
Maybe don't use gawker
nicolasanstee30 May 2020
A rocky start using a company that is just horrible and awful to human beings with a few good staffers, later takes a look at another company and a group of people who have nothing but my upmost respect for the work they do.
Frustrating but interesting.
Frustrating but interesting.
Subject wise is fine
cheer8825 June 2017
Using Gawnker as a 1st amendment example may not be entirely suitable.
First the Tabloid headlines are rather disgusted than admirable. Personally, I would not be drawn any attentions to its website not mentioning to read the contents. Secondly posting someone's sex tape even brought more gray areas. Subsequently, its bona fide intention became blurry and unpersuasive. It could have started with a well known media instead. However, there would be presentably much bigger challenges since most main stream ones including FOX News already have mighty legal teams to fend out such allegations. So I would say it's not a well thought out documentary. The idea was applicable. But its implementation lacked effectiveness.
Basically, Gawnker is not a media public would think has its value in the society. It essentially leeched on human ethics. Nevertheless. 1st amendment protects all voices even dark, unpleasant ones. This documentary might convey such a message. However, I am the least convinced of their innocence and that is the problem.
First the Tabloid headlines are rather disgusted than admirable. Personally, I would not be drawn any attentions to its website not mentioning to read the contents. Secondly posting someone's sex tape even brought more gray areas. Subsequently, its bona fide intention became blurry and unpersuasive. It could have started with a well known media instead. However, there would be presentably much bigger challenges since most main stream ones including FOX News already have mighty legal teams to fend out such allegations. So I would say it's not a well thought out documentary. The idea was applicable. But its implementation lacked effectiveness.
Basically, Gawnker is not a media public would think has its value in the society. It essentially leeched on human ethics. Nevertheless. 1st amendment protects all voices even dark, unpleasant ones. This documentary might convey such a message. However, I am the least convinced of their innocence and that is the problem.
A documentary that fails because it becomes the very thing it is against.
brightgood1 November 2020
Spin doctoring and fake news exists on both conservative and liberal outlets. This documentary is a PRIME example of the very thing it argues against because it spins against conservatives only. Shameful.
Our free press clearly has a credibility problem.
Our free press clearly has a credibility problem.
Not for Trump believers
max-plastic5 July 2017
I can see that all of those negative reviews about this being one sided documentary and propaganda are basically from Donald Trump supporters doing exactly the same thing from the other side. I'm not even surprised, it's always like that. This documentary doesn't need the other side because they're simply wrong. This Peter Thiel thing is just shameful, he's insecure homosexual fellow possibly thinking that his orientation is not looking very good with his views and he'd rather hide it. This personal vendetta is pitiful, in any case. This is the worst reason. Sheldon Adelson is at least very private and he don't talk and do some stupid things to gain him publicity. And don't get me started on The One And Only. I won't go there. I'm not saying that releasing someone sex tape is fair and decent, I don't even care, if you look like this and have 25 cm penis you don't have to feel ashamed. Freedom of speech and press is for something and people need to learn some distance because they keep losing it as they get more money.
The story behind the story
irisinnc6 July 2017
Brian Knappenberger brings to light the attack on mainstream media, and more importantly, the manipulation of news by billionaires. The focus of the film is how those with money are able to create chaos, dictate content, and potentially erode the core of America's founding freedoms bestowed in the First Amendment. Knappenberger leads with the story of Hulk Hogan's sex tapes and the subsequent law suit against Gawker for reporting on and sharing the content. Attorneys on both sides are interviewed, along with key players in the story. Then the dots are connected, revealing the man behind the curtain who, like the great and powerful Oz, provides assistance and operates smoke and mirrors to manipulate the story. The film continues with revelations about other attempts - and successes - by those in power to purchase news companies and dictate content. Journalists are often used as scapegoats, the target of abuse by those who resent the truth being printed in black and white. Just as in any profession, there are bad news hounds that give journalism a bad name, causing the uninformed to jump in with the chanting of "fake news." This film is a reminder of how important the free press is to society, as well as reveals the required diligence and ultimate sacrifices made by ethical reporters.
The law should help us!
ersbel21 August 2017
The law should help us. Now when it helps "them" it's a bad law. And both sides are equally unpleasant in their stride to introduce the totalitarian state based on arbitrary decisions "for freedom" replacing the rule of law.
In this twisted sprint towards the total state, the scandal rags are actually "doing things differently." Anyway, the documentary is dishonest. And is trying to pull in any conspiracy in their favor.
Contact me with Questions, Comments or Suggestions ryitfork @ bitmail.ch
In this twisted sprint towards the total state, the scandal rags are actually "doing things differently." Anyway, the documentary is dishonest. And is trying to pull in any conspiracy in their favor.
Contact me with Questions, Comments or Suggestions ryitfork @ bitmail.ch
Knappenberger falls short of greatness by falling victim to the distraction that is Donald Trump.
ierenz21 September 2019
Nobody Speak" is a riveting documentary. It will make you care about the Gawker case in ways you may never have thought possible. This may prove to be one of the most important cases of the century. What Knappenberger has created is a must-watch film, yet it is not the only of note about the Trump presidency. It's only June, and already two major films have been delivered about our current commander and chief. Don't be surprised if more are on the way.
Schoolyard Bully Finally Gets Smacked Down, Proceeds To Cry About It
SalTBalsak24 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This completely one-sided affair with copious amounts of willfully blind hypocrisy, irony and ignorance is good for nothing other than seeing, in living color, the cesspool that was GAWKER Media and its amazingly smug and self-righteous founders, "editors" and "journalists" (cough cough) finally get its comeuppance. From that standpoint, you will thoroughly enjoy the film. Hence my 2 star rating instead of 1.
Particularly sad is the filmmaker's desperate attempt to juxtapose Trump with the root of this documentary, Bollea v GAWKER. They intersperse shots of Trump and his base calling out the media with shots of the court case as if they were somehow connected. Don't be fooled, the GAWKER case and Trump's tirades against the media never crossed paths in reality. One can only assume the filmmaker did this in a desperate attempt to gain notoriety for the film and sympathy for the subject matter which in GAWKER's case is a pretty tough, if not impossible sell.
Next they argue that Peter Thiel's involvement was the only reason GAWKER lost the case and was subsequently bankrupted. Yes, how dare someone with pockets deep enough to actually take them on head to head showed up, otherwise they would have won. I guess now they know how it felt to all the "little people" they defamed on a daily basis with no means to fight back. This blatantly obvious irony and hypocrisy is absolutely lost on them.
The filmmaker then goes on to highlight the "dangers" of "ultra- wealthy" individuals buying media outlets in order to control information and reporting. They use casino magnate and right-wing boogieman Sheldon Adelson purchasing the Las Vegas Review-Journal as their go-to example of this peril, yet amazingly fail to mention Jeff Bezos, Amazon founder and the world's second richest man, purchasing the far more influential Washington Post whose usage of anonymous sources in their reporting is just an accepted norm at this point. All the while, a Washington Post journalist is one of the interviewees espousing the dangers of the Adelson purchase. Once again, the irony is overwhelming.
Also, what the journalists interviewed and another reviewer on here fail to understand, but thankfully the jury did, is that Hulk Hogan and Terry Bollea ARE two different people in the sense described by the GAWKER case. Professional Wrestling is not like acting or being a sports figure or personality of any kind. An "old-school" wrestler such as Hogan/Bollea is expected to maintain his in-ring persona/character as a completely separate identity from his true self even when just strolling around outside their homes. It's called maintaining "kayfabe" (google it). So when "Hulk Hogan" is being interviewed or speaking about himself, that is absolutely completely different than interviewing "Terry Bollea". They ARE two different, distinct people. One is a character, one is the person playing the character, but one does not necessarily have the same characteristics of the other. I understand this is a difficult concept to understand, but, it's just a known fact in the wrestling industry... something of which an actual journalist should have complete knowledge.
Lastly, and I apologize for this review being so long, it's just that this documentary is so easy to pick apart, but, the moral the filmmaker is trying to get across, particularly in the GAWKER case, is, if you're a "public figure" a media company should be allowed to publish nude photos or a sex tape of you, secretly shot and distributed without your consent, otherwise it is somehow an affront to "free press". Does that make sense to you? I seem to remember sports personality Erin Andrews being secretly filmed through a peephole in her hotel room, suing and winning millions of dollars and the media applauded her, and rightfully so. But, I guess if it's the media profiting off the photos/video and not some ordinary creeper, it's a completely different story.
Are you beginning to get the same sense of the hypocrisy and irony I did? I think just maybe you are...
Particularly sad is the filmmaker's desperate attempt to juxtapose Trump with the root of this documentary, Bollea v GAWKER. They intersperse shots of Trump and his base calling out the media with shots of the court case as if they were somehow connected. Don't be fooled, the GAWKER case and Trump's tirades against the media never crossed paths in reality. One can only assume the filmmaker did this in a desperate attempt to gain notoriety for the film and sympathy for the subject matter which in GAWKER's case is a pretty tough, if not impossible sell.
Next they argue that Peter Thiel's involvement was the only reason GAWKER lost the case and was subsequently bankrupted. Yes, how dare someone with pockets deep enough to actually take them on head to head showed up, otherwise they would have won. I guess now they know how it felt to all the "little people" they defamed on a daily basis with no means to fight back. This blatantly obvious irony and hypocrisy is absolutely lost on them.
The filmmaker then goes on to highlight the "dangers" of "ultra- wealthy" individuals buying media outlets in order to control information and reporting. They use casino magnate and right-wing boogieman Sheldon Adelson purchasing the Las Vegas Review-Journal as their go-to example of this peril, yet amazingly fail to mention Jeff Bezos, Amazon founder and the world's second richest man, purchasing the far more influential Washington Post whose usage of anonymous sources in their reporting is just an accepted norm at this point. All the while, a Washington Post journalist is one of the interviewees espousing the dangers of the Adelson purchase. Once again, the irony is overwhelming.
Also, what the journalists interviewed and another reviewer on here fail to understand, but thankfully the jury did, is that Hulk Hogan and Terry Bollea ARE two different people in the sense described by the GAWKER case. Professional Wrestling is not like acting or being a sports figure or personality of any kind. An "old-school" wrestler such as Hogan/Bollea is expected to maintain his in-ring persona/character as a completely separate identity from his true self even when just strolling around outside their homes. It's called maintaining "kayfabe" (google it). So when "Hulk Hogan" is being interviewed or speaking about himself, that is absolutely completely different than interviewing "Terry Bollea". They ARE two different, distinct people. One is a character, one is the person playing the character, but one does not necessarily have the same characteristics of the other. I understand this is a difficult concept to understand, but, it's just a known fact in the wrestling industry... something of which an actual journalist should have complete knowledge.
Lastly, and I apologize for this review being so long, it's just that this documentary is so easy to pick apart, but, the moral the filmmaker is trying to get across, particularly in the GAWKER case, is, if you're a "public figure" a media company should be allowed to publish nude photos or a sex tape of you, secretly shot and distributed without your consent, otherwise it is somehow an affront to "free press". Does that make sense to you? I seem to remember sports personality Erin Andrews being secretly filmed through a peephole in her hotel room, suing and winning millions of dollars and the media applauded her, and rightfully so. But, I guess if it's the media profiting off the photos/video and not some ordinary creeper, it's a completely different story.
Are you beginning to get the same sense of the hypocrisy and irony I did? I think just maybe you are...
Well done
m-gretha-anna12 July 2017
I read a lot of reviews that are making the point of this shocking documentary. Just say it is all false and not true. Yet this documentary is based on facts and facts alone. Facts that can be found. The way the ultra rich will take away our freedom of speak and expression is not something to take lightly! When this right is taken away. If only the minions of the wealthy are allowed to speak, that is the beginning of something one cannot even imagine. Ultra right, ultra left, I don't care. Everyone has the right to speak out!
If journalists don't pat their own back, who will?
nwalter-68-75762926 April 2018
This was a well-produced and thoughtful piece that certainly caught my eye as I scrolled through Netflix. As a guy who follows journalism fairly close (as a hobby, not an occupation), I was certainly intrigued.
There were three problems I saw with the movie.
First, it was very one-sided. Sheldon Adelson, a Republican, is obviously a horrible, maniacal billionaire whose only reason to purchase a newspaper is to hide any negative press about himself. Nevermind all the Democrat billionaires who buy newspapers-Buffett, Bezos, John Henry. I'm sure their intentions are 100% pure and noble and they never try to use their newspaper to cover up stories? Mmhmm. Sure.
Second, it was just an attack on one person. I'm not a Trump supporter. I did not vote for him and will never vote for him. But the disingenuousness behind the documentary was insulting. We can talk about the effect the Hogan/Bollea case has on journalism without having to go the anti-Trump route. (Also note, they say nothing about Obama trying journalists under the Espionage Act).
But the bigger point to all this is that journalists actually think they are above any criticism. ANY story they come up with is newsworthy, important, and completely above reproach. And to criticize them is to slap the face of the most important arm of civil society. To question them is to question the fabric of society-which is obviously the journalists.
We can't question them, call them to the carpet for shady, unethical, or inappropriate uses of their positions, stories, or actions. And since the general public's faith in journalism is waning (many will contend it's all but gone), they have to pat themselves on the back.
Nobody is going to bat for the journalists anymore. And perhaps that's the bigger element for them: they see their impact on society decreasing, so they need pieces like this.
I found this to be an intriguing, yet troubling film.
There were three problems I saw with the movie.
First, it was very one-sided. Sheldon Adelson, a Republican, is obviously a horrible, maniacal billionaire whose only reason to purchase a newspaper is to hide any negative press about himself. Nevermind all the Democrat billionaires who buy newspapers-Buffett, Bezos, John Henry. I'm sure their intentions are 100% pure and noble and they never try to use their newspaper to cover up stories? Mmhmm. Sure.
Second, it was just an attack on one person. I'm not a Trump supporter. I did not vote for him and will never vote for him. But the disingenuousness behind the documentary was insulting. We can talk about the effect the Hogan/Bollea case has on journalism without having to go the anti-Trump route. (Also note, they say nothing about Obama trying journalists under the Espionage Act).
But the bigger point to all this is that journalists actually think they are above any criticism. ANY story they come up with is newsworthy, important, and completely above reproach. And to criticize them is to slap the face of the most important arm of civil society. To question them is to question the fabric of society-which is obviously the journalists.
We can't question them, call them to the carpet for shady, unethical, or inappropriate uses of their positions, stories, or actions. And since the general public's faith in journalism is waning (many will contend it's all but gone), they have to pat themselves on the back.
Nobody is going to bat for the journalists anymore. And perhaps that's the bigger element for them: they see their impact on society decreasing, so they need pieces like this.
I found this to be an intriguing, yet troubling film.
Excellent and timely
danerylweber16 July 2017
Well argued documentary that meticulously details attacks by the monied elite, among them Sheldon Adelson and Peter Thiel, against freedom of the press-- which are ultimately attacks against democracy. Reviews that dismiss the film on the basis of Gawker's questionable ethos are missing the larger point.
A documentary of desperation
DonnieDio1 June 2020
Warning: Spoilers
This documentary desperately tries to twist the facts in order to make this a issue of freedom of the press, and evil rich people trying to destroy freedom of speech. But it falls completely flat. What Gawker did was wrong, simple as that. They were rightly punished. The fact that the prosecution lowered their charges, in doing reducing the money they could earn as damages, to remove the defences insurances and put all costs on them personally is made out to be sinister. But in reality it shows that what they wanted was justice, not "damages". The idea that you can ruin lives and then have your insurance company pay damages for the privileged is sick, and these people consider that normal and can't understand why someone would want punishment for those individuals ahead of monetary gain?, they're pitiful.. so was this documentary.
Independent Media Brought Down by Lawsuits
gavin694223 June 2017
The trial between Hulk Hogan and Gawker Media pitted privacy rights against freedom of the press, and raised important questions about how big money can silence media.
This documentary is arguably one-sided, because it posits the idea that the media is being irrevocably harmed. No one is interviewed that strongly suggests the activities happening are a good thing. So if "fair and balanced" is what you are looking for, this may not be for you.
But if you are on the side of press freedom, this will provide you with plenty of fuel. We hear about the Las Vegas newspaper who is purchased by a man deserving of media criticism... and by buying the newspaper, he has effectively eliminated the watchdogs who keep him in check.
The first half of the film is the destruction of Gawker Media by Hulk Hogan and Peter Thiel. This was a case I followed closely at the time, and could not believe the outcome. But this documentary shows things that were even worse than I knew at the time. The bizarre courtroom testimony of Hulk Hogan is just absurd. He bases his entire case on the idea that things he says "in character" are very different from the real him. Which is crazy. An actor is not the same person as a character they play in a movie. But Terry Bollea is Hulk Hogan. There is not a clear line separating them.
This documentary is arguably one-sided, because it posits the idea that the media is being irrevocably harmed. No one is interviewed that strongly suggests the activities happening are a good thing. So if "fair and balanced" is what you are looking for, this may not be for you.
But if you are on the side of press freedom, this will provide you with plenty of fuel. We hear about the Las Vegas newspaper who is purchased by a man deserving of media criticism... and by buying the newspaper, he has effectively eliminated the watchdogs who keep him in check.
The first half of the film is the destruction of Gawker Media by Hulk Hogan and Peter Thiel. This was a case I followed closely at the time, and could not believe the outcome. But this documentary shows things that were even worse than I knew at the time. The bizarre courtroom testimony of Hulk Hogan is just absurd. He bases his entire case on the idea that things he says "in character" are very different from the real him. Which is crazy. An actor is not the same person as a character they play in a movie. But Terry Bollea is Hulk Hogan. There is not a clear line separating them.
Don't waste your time!
colevan6 July 2020
A tad alarmist, but extremely worrying.
Good-Will25 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Having read some of the previous reviews which criticized this for being "lefty" then well, it isn't. It's about our right to know the truth about what's going on.
Peter Thiel brought down a news site (Gawker) just because he could do since he was rich. Where will this end?
What this documentary clearly and unambiguously shows is that without a free press then our sources of information are going to be controlled by the 1%, and the opinions and the truth will be masked by whatever political agenda that those people have.
I'm stunned by some of the negative reviews on here since I don't think that the reviewers have thought through the implications of what they're saying.
Good journalists report, dig, get to the bottom of things and then tell the world, so this isn't a left wing conspiracy to bring down the government. It's called journalism.
THAT is what this documentary is about.
I say this because that's exactly what some people seem to be saying these days: Breitbart and Fox News: Truth. Any other channel: Fake news.
And if you don't find that sickening, then the sense of humanity that you may have once had has just gone.
And I do appreciate the irony of posting this review on a site owned by the billionaire Jeff Bezos who also owns the Washington Post.
Peter Thiel brought down a news site (Gawker) just because he could do since he was rich. Where will this end?
What this documentary clearly and unambiguously shows is that without a free press then our sources of information are going to be controlled by the 1%, and the opinions and the truth will be masked by whatever political agenda that those people have.
I'm stunned by some of the negative reviews on here since I don't think that the reviewers have thought through the implications of what they're saying.
Good journalists report, dig, get to the bottom of things and then tell the world, so this isn't a left wing conspiracy to bring down the government. It's called journalism.
THAT is what this documentary is about.
I say this because that's exactly what some people seem to be saying these days: Breitbart and Fox News: Truth. Any other channel: Fake news.
And if you don't find that sickening, then the sense of humanity that you may have once had has just gone.
And I do appreciate the irony of posting this review on a site owned by the billionaire Jeff Bezos who also owns the Washington Post.
A mess
paulsimmerman25 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This documentary can be summed up as defending professional slanderers and patting themselves on the back for the role of the media. You can't talk about the important role of media in democracy, cue sappy music, and then talk about what Gawker does/did. They go on to defame everyone on the opposite side. The rest is anti-trump bullshit and hyperbole. It is a disgusting self-righteous turd. More Eat the rich crap. Crying because they seemed to want to destroy Gawker as a business. UH, hello? Gawker existed to destroy others.
this is upsetting
jgutierrez8126 June 2017
I'm not much for conspiracy theories. I try my best to stay away from such matters, but this has become ever more clear and alarming as time has passed. this isn't about whether or not you like certain publication or whether or not you feel the media has lost its way. this is about a real, and unrelenting attack on what makes America, America, the first Amendment. whether your on the right or left, this should be extremely worrisome. what this documentary attempts to point out is that there seems to be an attack on freedom of the press by billionaires who don't like facts and truths to be presented, specially facts and truths about them. there is a reason that the first amendment is the FIRST AMENDMENT. there is a reason it's our most important and beloved amendment, why it really does symbolize what make this country great. this review could not exist without it. negative reviews of this documentary could not exist without it. your right to speak and write depends on it. this is a very important documentary that everyone should watch and discuss knowing full well that without the first amendment, this documentary would not exit, and our god given right to discuss said documentary would not exit either.
not a documentation but Nick Denton's slandering
dreamscn28 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
How can one possibly call this a documentary? Entirely one sided story funded by Nick Denton to get back at Peter Thiel. Apparently Nick did not learn the lesson and have absolutely no regret for people he hurt for a profit.
Nick Denton is a big bully with hundreds of millions and used bankruptcy to avoid paying damages. Yet the film portrayed him as an innocent victim. How disgraceful!
To sum it up, a Gawker quality video that probably isn't worth any of your time.
Nick Denton is a big bully with hundreds of millions and used bankruptcy to avoid paying damages. Yet the film portrayed him as an innocent victim. How disgraceful!
To sum it up, a Gawker quality video that probably isn't worth any of your time.
New title: journalists get butthurt and feel like they can't make clickbait due to sensorship?
ycqngm28 November 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I can't get past this one thing..
On one hand Gawker breaks a story by releasing a sex tape of a person and saying it's public interest in a public figure therefore it's freedom of speech without considering the damage.
The trial for the sex tape release was funded by a Silicon Valley billionaire legally. And at the same time the media respond by talking of his misogynistic comments and unsavoury opinions.
How can they not see the hypocrisy in saying that posting a sex tape is freedom of speech and a person voicing his personal opinions are inappropriate and he should be silenced..?
It really highlights how the world has moved towards political correctness with the influence of media and how freedom of speech is only such when it suits media. So self serving.
On one hand Gawker breaks a story by releasing a sex tape of a person and saying it's public interest in a public figure therefore it's freedom of speech without considering the damage.
The trial for the sex tape release was funded by a Silicon Valley billionaire legally. And at the same time the media respond by talking of his misogynistic comments and unsavoury opinions.
How can they not see the hypocrisy in saying that posting a sex tape is freedom of speech and a person voicing his personal opinions are inappropriate and he should be silenced..?
It really highlights how the world has moved towards political correctness with the influence of media and how freedom of speech is only such when it suits media. So self serving.
Shoots itself in the foot
samlaidman23 March 2018
Completely one sided film. The film sets out to make case that the free press is being silenced with money (a very broad description, but you'll see there are multiple ways the press is being "silenced" by the wealthy), but fails at every turn to prove it, or to even to make journalists sympathetic characters.
Shot in foot #1: Claiming Gawker is a bastion of truth and had every right to share Hulk Hogans sex tape online.
There is, of course, the Peter Thiel aspect. Thiel is a multi-billionaire investor/entrepreneur who, along with friends, was outted as gay by Gawker media 10 years previous, and so funded Hulk Hogans lawsuit with Gawker over sharing his foray into amateur porn. Of course, most sane people don't like third-party litigation when it comes to two already-wealthy people... But in this case it's hard not to feel for the billionaire who came to the aid of his millionaire friend. Oddly enough.
Shot in foot #2 (and I'm going to hurry this along, as the movie does -- The story is really all about Hulk-Thiel): The Las Vegas Review is being bought by a mysterious company.... And the working journalists are concerned the buyer will silence them. They do some digging, expose the owner of the paper... and that's that. I also work at a corporate news outlet.... What's your point? I don't think there is one. Who but a rich man would own a newspaper? If anything this proves that those particular journalists were NOT silenced by their owner, at least in that instance....
Shot in foot #3: Trump fear mongering. We all know Trump disdains the free press. It's not his own original idea you know!
Some ominous words and a few famous quotes later, and it's finally over.
I laughed, I cried, and I learned nothing.
Such a noble idea -- The free press is being bought out and silenced. I'm sure it's true. But this movie fails to make the case.
Someone should take another shot at this subject.
Undermines its own case with heavy handed bias
tetrahex5 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The lack of self awareness is painful with this film, they complain about billionaires influence when their favored media npr/pbs are funded by the foundations of the monopolists from the gilded age, from the MacArthur Foundation to the Carnegie to the Rockefeller foundation, those 3 alone almost total 20 billion in endowments, never mind the rest. The lefts newspapers are little more than billionaires blogs, a wealthy patron behind each one, the woke corporate media again, billion dollar corporations with a virtual monopoly on journalistic speech, and now of course woke tech which gets to choose which journalistic speech is promoted and which is buried.
Behind every point is an unacknowledged counter point of hypocrisy, lawfare for instance has been a staple of the left for the longest time.
The film puts out a deliberately cartoon view of Peter Thiels views on controversial subjects when his speeches and writings are easily accessible for one to verify for themselves. This is again reflected in the cartoon depiction in silicon valley tv show referenced because these people aren't able to deal with his nuanced ideas without questioning their own ideology.
This isn't a defense of journalism, these are partisan corporate journalists who have self appointed themselves as an arm of government. The owner, the funder is only bad if it is on the other team, that much is clear.
Furthermore they undermined themselves by not addressing how the leftist ideology turned back in on itself to destroy Gawker from within. Concepts of "hate speech" were pushed undermining freedom, as to any church, the voice of a heretic is "hate speech". Even more pertinent is the idea of revenge porn. Add to this the endless expansion of victim classes and safe spaces enforced by cancel culture and you had gawker pushing hypocritical narratives where "harm" should be silenced, as long as they were the arbiters of harm, and so when they were in turn silenced based on harm it wasn't something one could sympathize with as they had already proven their only principle was what suited them in the moment.
The last part of this padded film is an anti Trump diatribe. Trump just points at the press calling them out as fake and doesn't try to earn their approval. The press then confirms his accusation by running years of russian conspiracy theory, thus undermining the entire thesis of the documentary.
The focus of this film is being misinterpreted...
pali-282-3870711 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Let me make this clear. I don't like and did not like what Gawker stood for, however the film is not just about Hogan vs Gawker. It's about how the rich are trying to stamp out quality journalism and the lengths they are willing go to in order to do so.
I suppose the film put way too much focus on the Gawker angle - but other than that it is a clear eye opener as to how the super rich and powerful try to control the media.
The story surrounding the Review Journal, Nevada was well rounded and supported by justifiable facts that are hard to deny.
I suppose the film put way too much focus on the Gawker angle - but other than that it is a clear eye opener as to how the super rich and powerful try to control the media.
The story surrounding the Review Journal, Nevada was well rounded and supported by justifiable facts that are hard to deny.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
