And again: this story reports that we don't even know what was in DeRogatis' original piece. Buzzfeed's legal cut things out of it. When we say "a well-researched piece like this is fine post-Gawker", we should recognize that we don't know if DeRogatis' original reporting even survived the editing process.
Yes, the landscape is different, as it damn well should be.
> A columnist is someone who writes for publication in a series, creating an article that usually offers commentary and opinions. Columns appear in newspapers, magazines and other publications, including blogs. They take the form of a short essay by a specific writer who offers a personal point of view. In some instances, a column has been written by a composite or a team, appearing under a pseudonym, or (in effect) a brand name. Some columnists appear on a daily or weekly basis and later reprint the same material in book collections.[2]
The first quote is from the author's blurb at the bottom of OP's post. The second is straight from the definition of Columnist. I think her disclosure was adequate, as it assumes those reading her story understand that columnists' jobs are to give their own commentary.
[1.] Scroll to the bottom of the OP's article and you'll see the author's name and role at the WaPo.
We might have to agree to disagree, then. Without an explicit disclaimer (as is common/conventional for opinion pieces like this), the only reasonable assumption here is that - by allowing this article to be published on its website with its branding - the Washington Post endorses this article and the opinions thereof.
None of what you've linked/quoted contradicts that assessment in any way. In fact, it only reinforces it.
But yeah, it just MIGHT happen to you. I believe newspaper writers should also reconsider the threat of lightning strikes, I hear they kill people every year.
Gawker acted like a petulant child that was appalled it was getting punished by an admittedly broken and hypocritical system. This does not mean other people now need to fear the system anymore than they should have feared it before - its brokenness was not magically illuminated by Gawker. There are so many cases of defamation lawfare that anti-SLAPP statutes exist(bonus points not in all states!) and there are several high-prominence FA lawyers who write about the issue and organize a defense for it.
If the newspaper writers were somehow unaware of this before Gawker(including all the small-time blogs which get ruined by defamation lawfare because they cannot afford representation - essentially what happened to Gawker here, just on a larger scale), then they were blind to reality.
[0] - http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hoga...
[1] - http://nypost.com/2016/03/09/gawker-editors-line-a-sex-tape-...
As someone having the ability to ruin anybody with what you type into a keyboard you should be held to as high a standard as possible.
I worked in this environment years ago and I still feel tainted by association. Imho most of the so called free press has no right to be privileged at all.
What I would call journalism on the other hand should be able to operate unharmed and as free as possible (but as said above) nor unchecked.
They aren't, which is why we have things like journalism.
Trying to in someway make people feel bad for Gawker by somehow saying that their entirely self-imposed destruction is making it hard for actual news with real value to be published is super disingenuous.
If other news outlets got nervous about publishing legitimate investigations into the actions of public figures, that's on them. The protections the press receives in America are robust, and the Gawker case was so newsworthy because it was an actual instance of the press "losing" for once in one of these case, and only because their actions were incredibly egregious.
In summary, the article tries to drum up some sort of phony sympathy for the actions of Gawker by somehow linking worthwhile reporting with the muck-racking dreck that Gawker traded in and ultimately was killed by.