You should be weary of everything you read to some extent and try to make sure what you're reading is valid. NYTimes and The Economist (I enjoy both of them just making a point) both did horrible reporting for the Iraq War. I assume you would consider them serious news outlets.
Almost spit out my coffee.
Yes, they basically are. Just in case you are confused why your comment is getting downvoted, it's because they absolutely should not be considered a valid news source.
They [1].
Should [2].
Not [3].
Now I'm sure you're getting ready to bring up other outlets again, which may I remind you was not the point of my original comment or this one. We're talking about Gawker and only Gawker's reputation. Other outlets have other issues I'm sure, but it has been proven time and time again that Gawker cannot be trusted.
[1] https://www.cnet.com/news/ceas-take-on-ces-gizmodo-prank-ban...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker
[3] http://www.businessinsider.com/past-controversy-at-gawker-me...
But yes Gawker is pretty bad. Maybe I should've said "Gawker isn't as bad as pure tabloids, at least some of the time".
Side note: I don't seem to be downvoted. I'm guessing my comment has been going up and down in votes then? When can you see other people's karma? I see you're karma is a couple hundred above mine.
100% tabloid. They had no journalistic integrity beyond "lets get more clicks" and were not afraid to break the law or ignore the truth to do it.