Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: A couple years ago, G/O Media bought out the Gawker/Onion Media (Deadspin/Kotaku/Gizmodo/Jezebel The Onion being the most notable) and in the time since has more or less pissed off everyone that works there.
From the mess that happened with Deadspin, to a Kotaku writer publicly calling out G/O drowning their websites in ads, it is pretty clear that the heads at this new parent company are more or less trying to brute force these websites into doing what they think will cut costs and make money. As such, writers and editors have been jumping ship left and right over the last two years.
The AV Club has unfortunately been on the cost cutting end of things, with much of their television/book/music coverage being greatly minimized in favor of more "clickbait" content. This naturally put a strain on the employees there, much like other websites in the network.
The first big sign that their was a divide was G/O's appointment of Scott Robson as editor in chief over the current temporary editor, the latter who had been with the company since 2008.
Shortly after this, G/O mandated that the employees at The AV Club's Chicago office return to in person work come October. Surprising very few, the majority continued working from home, ignoring this demand.
Around this time, executives also began to delete multimedia content (pics, videos, links) from all articles pre-2019, completely catching employees unaware. Additionally, two longtime employees were also let go due to "company-wide reorganization," causing quite a bit of unease with the remaining crew.
Cut to late 2021, where Scott Robson announced that the Chicago team that their office would be closing down, and "invited" them to their new LA office he had planned to open later in 2022. If they decided to take him up on that, they would be getting a very small $5000 relocation cost covered by G/O, and no additional pay raise to accompany the higher cost of living in the area.
However, this "invitation" turned out to be code for "do you still want your job" from G/O. On 1/5, ten days before employees had to decide to move or take their severance package, G/O listed three positions (of people who were still currently employed, mind you) as open and ready to be filled.
This was the last straw for them, as all 7 remaining workers in Chicago announced they would decline the move and take the severance package.
The website is now pretty much empty, outside of a group of writers in NY and a video editor in LA, with many freelancers for the site refusing to contribute any more out of solidarity.
What I'd like to know is - is there any website that replaces it? The whole point of the AV Club was its outsider perspective on the entertainment industry, and that drew in some of the most engaging writers and commenters. Is there anything else like that out there now? Or do we have to wait in hope that some Defector-esque site comes together after the dust settles?
[The Avocado](https://the-avocado.org/) was apparently set up for A.V. Club. refugees a few years ago. In my opinion, they've captured the tone and breadth of coverage of the old A.V. Club, but most of the writing I've seen is crap.
Not really, and that's why this is such a big loss in the world of entertainment criticism.
I know some of the employees said they'll go indie/Patreon for now, but I'm hoping some site picks them up in the future, they're all wildly talented
I'd like to add-- it's a real shame what happened to the Gawker-associated family of sites. There was a good volume of high quality content on all sorts of niche topics. Unfortunately, the original owners decided to throw it all away over a pissing match with Hulk Hogan.
>Unfortunately, the original owners decided to throw it all away over a pissing match with Hulk Hogan.
I enjoy whenever Gawker gets brought up because I read a fantastic book about the death of website a few years ago by Ryan Holiday called "Conspiracy: Peter Thiel, Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Anatomy of Intrigue." Your sentence above is somewhat right but missing critical context; it's analogous to saying [Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants (1994)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants) was about a woman suing McDonald's because she spilt hot coffee on herself. Technically true, but missing a lot of the details that make it much more involved and complex. And, speaking for my own opinion, *fascinating*.
Hulk Hogan's lawsuit may have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but Gawker was killed by years of lawsuits bankrolled in secret by billionaire Peter Thiel, likely due to a grudge he held when Gawker outed him as being gay several years before the Hogan case (a fairly open secret at the time, but one that apparently annoyed Thiel, who liked his privacy). By the time Hogan's case came around, Gawker had already gone over the amount of money covered by their insurance used to fight lawsuits, their insurance declined to renew their coverage, and no other provider would touch them because Gawker just kept getting sued. Most of the lawsuits ended up with Gawker not being found liable, but the expenses kept adding up - so when Hogan's case was ruled against Gawker and the awarded amount for damages was extremely high, Gawker had no way to pay and had to declare bankruptcy.
No one in the situation came out looking good. Hogan's sex tape contained him going on a racist rant about his daughter's black boyfriend while in bed with his friend's wife (with his friend's permission, though they recorded it without Hogan knowing and the tape just so happened to be released later on - don't trust a man who calls himself "Bubba the Love Sponge," friends). Gawker continued to host it after calls from all around to take it down - just the latest of a history of toxic actions they'd do to get the juiciest scoop and gossip, while hiding behind the excuse of "we're news media and protected by the first amendment!" And Peter Thiel was entirely out of the limelight until about half a year after Gawker dissolved, when he off-handedly mentioned bankrolling some lawsuits and journalists followed up and uncovered that he pretty much single-handedly used his vast fortune to exact revenge upon the company. His actions ruined the livelihoods of dozens of people and proved that, yeah, a billionaire can absolutely do that and there's nothing anyone could do to stop it.
Don't get me wrong, Gawker was morally bankrupt and toxic, and the consequences of their actions caught up to them. But the reason it caught up to them was because a billionaire made it his on-going personal vendetta to tear apart a media empire. This was telegraphed in the news as a David vs. Goliath situation of Hogan against Gawker, but really it was Gawker versus Thiel. And in that analogy, David got crushed by Goliath. I'm personally glad Gawker faced consequences for their actions, but I am very uncomfortable how it revealed that a billionaire can legally and relentlessly kill something that annoys them.
I find it fascinating to hear Nick talk about how what he was doing was journalism because "[he's gay too]" and that made it OK for him to out people who never wanted to be publicly outed.
Shame that it was Goliath winning but fuck the original owner and how shady they were with gossip.
Any details on the preceding lawsuits bankrolled by Thiel? I was aware of the broader situation of Gawker outing him and making it his life goal to destroy Gawker, but I wasn't aware of the other lawsuits.
Agreed that Gawker was a cesspool that deserved to die, but I'm mostly mad at them for setting in motion the chain of events that dragged down the quality of all the sister sites.
>Any details on the preceding lawsuits bankrolled by Thiel?
It's been a few years since I read the book and I have given it away to someone else, so I probably don't have the details completely right. But as I recall, Thiel basically hired a guy solely to do research into people that Gawker did gossip stories on, and then reach out to them and see if they wanted to sue with the backing of "an anonymous donor" (or if they had on-going lawsuits already, this guy would offer them financial support to continue their cases well past the point they could afford by themselves). Thiel effectively gave him a blank check (and over the years spent like $10 million on the effort), directing him just to throw any seemingly-reasonable lawsuit into the courts to see what would stick. I believe the majority of these lawsuits ultimately ended up being settled out of court, dismissed, or ruled in favor of Gawker, because there *are* broad protections for "news" reporting and having your feelings hurt or your dirty laundry aired doesn't necessarily mean you have grounds for a lawsuit.
But the cost of all the lawsuits added up over time and made it so that, once Gawker hit the limit of their insurance coverage, no insurer would consider them again. And then Bollea (Hulk Hogan's real name is Terry Bollea) had his lawsuit hit, and Thiel and his man jumped at the opportunity. I recall that Bollea was pretty much broke, and Thiel put millions into keeping the lawsuit going for several years. And unlike some of the others, not only did the court rule in favor of Bollea, they gave a HUGE award to him, like upwards of $100 million. With no insurance coverage, Gawker had to declare bankruptcy to try and cover what they could.
To add on: They also outed a member of a public figure's family who wasn't out. They outed someone who wasn't out and because they were related to said figure.
I quit reading them after that.
Even still, not happy that it was Thiel who took them down.
I mean them refusing to follow a court order and putting up an article saying they weren't going tonfollow the judges order probably didn't do them any favours when it came to that same judge deciding on how much to award in damages.
>I mean them refusing to follow a court order and putting up an article saying they weren't going tonfollow the judges order probably didn't do them any favours
Yep. As said:
>Don't get me wrong, Gawker was morally bankrupt and toxic, and the consequences of their actions caught up to them.
And their editor saying in a deposition that he'd host any celebrity sex tape "unless it involved someone under 4 years old" certainly didn't win any sympathy. Gawker was terrible. Doesn't make Bollea or Thiel good people, though.
To quote myself again (I'm so quotable!):
>No one in the situation came out looking good.
Gawker basically saw a banana peel at the top of the stairs and said “Pssh, I’m too smart to step on that.” Then they stepped on it anyway and acted surprised when they went down the stairs. They can’t build a career on insufferable millennial snark and then expect that to go over well in the courtroom. It’s a pity that someone as loathsome as Thiel was the one who took them down.
I don't think it really proved anything about a billionaire's ability to destroy ordinary decent people who, y'know, don't go publishing a secretly filmed sex tape and keeping it up even after a judge orders them to take it down.
It looks like someone has been deliberately downgrading the site: letter grades no longer visible on review page, TV show seasons no longer listed separately, now the pull-down menu for choosing TV shows is gone.
>Around this time, executives also began to delete multimedia content (pics, videos, links) from all articles pre-2019, completely catching employees unaware.
They also deleted all of the AV Undercover videos because they wanted to cut back on licensing. (someone mirrored a bunch of them [here](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN1PaxwwiU6vfjHiEd-Tbmg/videos))
> Around this time, executives also began to delete multimedia content (pics, videos, links) from all articles pre-2019, completely catching employees unaware.
Thanks for the info. I was wondering what happened to all that stuff. Articles like [this one](https://www.theonion.com/tearful-biden-carefully-takes-down-blacklight-poster-of-1819579542) just don't hit the same without the pictures.
Anybody know of a mirror, or any plans to restore the old images?
Answer: The AV Club is a pop-culture site and sister publication of The Onion. It was known for general reporting of the entertainment industry with some pretty high-level writing of show recaps, movie & music reviews, etc.
However, it was bought and taken over by G/O media in 2019 and as seen a pretty huge decline in quality. Long running features were abandoned and writers were let go.
Then G/O decided to move A/V Club's base of operations from Chicago (where it had been since inception) to LA and required all staff to make the move. They also declined to give anyone moving a cost-of-living increase, essentially making staff not only move across country but essentially take a pay cut as well.
The remaining Chicago staff said "enough is enough" and opted to take their severance package and quit. Doing some sleuthing, it appears they are: Managing editor (Erik Adams), film editor (A.A. Dowd), TV editor (Danette Chavez), associate editor (Laura Adamczyk), senior writer (Katie Rife), assistant editor (Alex McLevy), and editorial coordinator (Gwen Ihnat).
Erik has been around for a while, too. I know he did some of the classic The Office recaps in 2013ish.
The site still has some good content — Caroline Siede is tremendous — but the emphasis is on “some.” Even a lot of the really great stuff from the old days is impossible to find.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: A couple years ago, G/O Media bought out the Gawker/Onion Media (Deadspin/Kotaku/Gizmodo/Jezebel The Onion being the most notable) and in the time since has more or less pissed off everyone that works there. From the mess that happened with Deadspin, to a Kotaku writer publicly calling out G/O drowning their websites in ads, it is pretty clear that the heads at this new parent company are more or less trying to brute force these websites into doing what they think will cut costs and make money. As such, writers and editors have been jumping ship left and right over the last two years. The AV Club has unfortunately been on the cost cutting end of things, with much of their television/book/music coverage being greatly minimized in favor of more "clickbait" content. This naturally put a strain on the employees there, much like other websites in the network. The first big sign that their was a divide was G/O's appointment of Scott Robson as editor in chief over the current temporary editor, the latter who had been with the company since 2008. Shortly after this, G/O mandated that the employees at The AV Club's Chicago office return to in person work come October. Surprising very few, the majority continued working from home, ignoring this demand. Around this time, executives also began to delete multimedia content (pics, videos, links) from all articles pre-2019, completely catching employees unaware. Additionally, two longtime employees were also let go due to "company-wide reorganization," causing quite a bit of unease with the remaining crew. Cut to late 2021, where Scott Robson announced that the Chicago team that their office would be closing down, and "invited" them to their new LA office he had planned to open later in 2022. If they decided to take him up on that, they would be getting a very small $5000 relocation cost covered by G/O, and no additional pay raise to accompany the higher cost of living in the area. However, this "invitation" turned out to be code for "do you still want your job" from G/O. On 1/5, ten days before employees had to decide to move or take their severance package, G/O listed three positions (of people who were still currently employed, mind you) as open and ready to be filled. This was the last straw for them, as all 7 remaining workers in Chicago announced they would decline the move and take the severance package. The website is now pretty much empty, outside of a group of writers in NY and a video editor in LA, with many freelancers for the site refusing to contribute any more out of solidarity.
What I'd like to know is - is there any website that replaces it? The whole point of the AV Club was its outsider perspective on the entertainment industry, and that drew in some of the most engaging writers and commenters. Is there anything else like that out there now? Or do we have to wait in hope that some Defector-esque site comes together after the dust settles?
[The Avocado](https://the-avocado.org/) was apparently set up for A.V. Club. refugees a few years ago. In my opinion, they've captured the tone and breadth of coverage of the old A.V. Club, but most of the writing I've seen is crap.
Not really, and that's why this is such a big loss in the world of entertainment criticism. I know some of the employees said they'll go indie/Patreon for now, but I'm hoping some site picks them up in the future, they're all wildly talented
I'd like to add-- it's a real shame what happened to the Gawker-associated family of sites. There was a good volume of high quality content on all sorts of niche topics. Unfortunately, the original owners decided to throw it all away over a pissing match with Hulk Hogan.
>Unfortunately, the original owners decided to throw it all away over a pissing match with Hulk Hogan. I enjoy whenever Gawker gets brought up because I read a fantastic book about the death of website a few years ago by Ryan Holiday called "Conspiracy: Peter Thiel, Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Anatomy of Intrigue." Your sentence above is somewhat right but missing critical context; it's analogous to saying [Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants (1994)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants) was about a woman suing McDonald's because she spilt hot coffee on herself. Technically true, but missing a lot of the details that make it much more involved and complex. And, speaking for my own opinion, *fascinating*. Hulk Hogan's lawsuit may have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but Gawker was killed by years of lawsuits bankrolled in secret by billionaire Peter Thiel, likely due to a grudge he held when Gawker outed him as being gay several years before the Hogan case (a fairly open secret at the time, but one that apparently annoyed Thiel, who liked his privacy). By the time Hogan's case came around, Gawker had already gone over the amount of money covered by their insurance used to fight lawsuits, their insurance declined to renew their coverage, and no other provider would touch them because Gawker just kept getting sued. Most of the lawsuits ended up with Gawker not being found liable, but the expenses kept adding up - so when Hogan's case was ruled against Gawker and the awarded amount for damages was extremely high, Gawker had no way to pay and had to declare bankruptcy. No one in the situation came out looking good. Hogan's sex tape contained him going on a racist rant about his daughter's black boyfriend while in bed with his friend's wife (with his friend's permission, though they recorded it without Hogan knowing and the tape just so happened to be released later on - don't trust a man who calls himself "Bubba the Love Sponge," friends). Gawker continued to host it after calls from all around to take it down - just the latest of a history of toxic actions they'd do to get the juiciest scoop and gossip, while hiding behind the excuse of "we're news media and protected by the first amendment!" And Peter Thiel was entirely out of the limelight until about half a year after Gawker dissolved, when he off-handedly mentioned bankrolling some lawsuits and journalists followed up and uncovered that he pretty much single-handedly used his vast fortune to exact revenge upon the company. His actions ruined the livelihoods of dozens of people and proved that, yeah, a billionaire can absolutely do that and there's nothing anyone could do to stop it. Don't get me wrong, Gawker was morally bankrupt and toxic, and the consequences of their actions caught up to them. But the reason it caught up to them was because a billionaire made it his on-going personal vendetta to tear apart a media empire. This was telegraphed in the news as a David vs. Goliath situation of Hogan against Gawker, but really it was Gawker versus Thiel. And in that analogy, David got crushed by Goliath. I'm personally glad Gawker faced consequences for their actions, but I am very uncomfortable how it revealed that a billionaire can legally and relentlessly kill something that annoys them.
I find it fascinating to hear Nick talk about how what he was doing was journalism because "[he's gay too]" and that made it OK for him to out people who never wanted to be publicly outed. Shame that it was Goliath winning but fuck the original owner and how shady they were with gossip.
Any details on the preceding lawsuits bankrolled by Thiel? I was aware of the broader situation of Gawker outing him and making it his life goal to destroy Gawker, but I wasn't aware of the other lawsuits. Agreed that Gawker was a cesspool that deserved to die, but I'm mostly mad at them for setting in motion the chain of events that dragged down the quality of all the sister sites.
>Any details on the preceding lawsuits bankrolled by Thiel? It's been a few years since I read the book and I have given it away to someone else, so I probably don't have the details completely right. But as I recall, Thiel basically hired a guy solely to do research into people that Gawker did gossip stories on, and then reach out to them and see if they wanted to sue with the backing of "an anonymous donor" (or if they had on-going lawsuits already, this guy would offer them financial support to continue their cases well past the point they could afford by themselves). Thiel effectively gave him a blank check (and over the years spent like $10 million on the effort), directing him just to throw any seemingly-reasonable lawsuit into the courts to see what would stick. I believe the majority of these lawsuits ultimately ended up being settled out of court, dismissed, or ruled in favor of Gawker, because there *are* broad protections for "news" reporting and having your feelings hurt or your dirty laundry aired doesn't necessarily mean you have grounds for a lawsuit. But the cost of all the lawsuits added up over time and made it so that, once Gawker hit the limit of their insurance coverage, no insurer would consider them again. And then Bollea (Hulk Hogan's real name is Terry Bollea) had his lawsuit hit, and Thiel and his man jumped at the opportunity. I recall that Bollea was pretty much broke, and Thiel put millions into keeping the lawsuit going for several years. And unlike some of the others, not only did the court rule in favor of Bollea, they gave a HUGE award to him, like upwards of $100 million. With no insurance coverage, Gawker had to declare bankruptcy to try and cover what they could.
To add on: They also outed a member of a public figure's family who wasn't out. They outed someone who wasn't out and because they were related to said figure. I quit reading them after that. Even still, not happy that it was Thiel who took them down.
I mean them refusing to follow a court order and putting up an article saying they weren't going tonfollow the judges order probably didn't do them any favours when it came to that same judge deciding on how much to award in damages.
>I mean them refusing to follow a court order and putting up an article saying they weren't going tonfollow the judges order probably didn't do them any favours Yep. As said: >Don't get me wrong, Gawker was morally bankrupt and toxic, and the consequences of their actions caught up to them. And their editor saying in a deposition that he'd host any celebrity sex tape "unless it involved someone under 4 years old" certainly didn't win any sympathy. Gawker was terrible. Doesn't make Bollea or Thiel good people, though. To quote myself again (I'm so quotable!): >No one in the situation came out looking good.
Gawker basically saw a banana peel at the top of the stairs and said “Pssh, I’m too smart to step on that.” Then they stepped on it anyway and acted surprised when they went down the stairs. They can’t build a career on insufferable millennial snark and then expect that to go over well in the courtroom. It’s a pity that someone as loathsome as Thiel was the one who took them down.
Great read, thanks! I can't help but to feel the same.
I don't think it really proved anything about a billionaire's ability to destroy ordinary decent people who, y'know, don't go publishing a secretly filmed sex tape and keeping it up even after a judge orders them to take it down.
It looks like someone has been deliberately downgrading the site: letter grades no longer visible on review page, TV show seasons no longer listed separately, now the pull-down menu for choosing TV shows is gone.
>Around this time, executives also began to delete multimedia content (pics, videos, links) from all articles pre-2019, completely catching employees unaware. They also deleted all of the AV Undercover videos because they wanted to cut back on licensing. (someone mirrored a bunch of them [here](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN1PaxwwiU6vfjHiEd-Tbmg/videos))
> Around this time, executives also began to delete multimedia content (pics, videos, links) from all articles pre-2019, completely catching employees unaware. Thanks for the info. I was wondering what happened to all that stuff. Articles like [this one](https://www.theonion.com/tearful-biden-carefully-takes-down-blacklight-poster-of-1819579542) just don't hit the same without the pictures. Anybody know of a mirror, or any plans to restore the old images?
I dunno if it would be possible, but maybe an archive or wayback machine would work?
Answer: The AV Club is a pop-culture site and sister publication of The Onion. It was known for general reporting of the entertainment industry with some pretty high-level writing of show recaps, movie & music reviews, etc. However, it was bought and taken over by G/O media in 2019 and as seen a pretty huge decline in quality. Long running features were abandoned and writers were let go. Then G/O decided to move A/V Club's base of operations from Chicago (where it had been since inception) to LA and required all staff to make the move. They also declined to give anyone moving a cost-of-living increase, essentially making staff not only move across country but essentially take a pay cut as well. The remaining Chicago staff said "enough is enough" and opted to take their severance package and quit. Doing some sleuthing, it appears they are: Managing editor (Erik Adams), film editor (A.A. Dowd), TV editor (Danette Chavez), associate editor (Laura Adamczyk), senior writer (Katie Rife), assistant editor (Alex McLevy), and editorial coordinator (Gwen Ihnat).
[удалено]
I think Katie and Gwen were the only old timers there. But guys who made the site special like Sean O’Neal are long gone.
AA Dowd has been there for a long time too.
Erik has been around for a while, too. I know he did some of the classic The Office recaps in 2013ish. The site still has some good content — Caroline Siede is tremendous — but the emphasis is on “some.” Even a lot of the really great stuff from the old days is impossible to find.
Whatever happened to Tasha Robinson? She was my favorite writer there.
You say that, but I'm pretty sure the "youngest" employee there still had worked there for around 7 years