Univision To Buy Gawker Media For $135 Million (recode.net) 138
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Recode: Univision has won the auction for Gawker Media. The TV network and digital publisher has agreed to pay $135 million for the bankrupt blog network, according to a person familiar with the deal. Univision's offer will encompass all seven of Gawker Media's sites, including Gawker.com. Ziff Davis and Univision were the only two bidders for Gawker, which filed for bankruptcy after Hulk Hogan and Peter Thiel won a $140 million judgment in a privacy case. Ziff Davis had originally offered $90 million for Gawker Media. Here's a statement from Gawker Media owner Nick Denton: "Gawker Media Group has agreed this evening to sell our business and popular brands to Univision, one of America's largest media companies that is rapidly assembling the leading digital media group for millennial and multicultural audiences. I am pleased that our employees are protected and will continue their work under new ownership -- disentangled from the legal campaign against the company. We could not have picked an acquirer more devoted to vibrant journalism." The deal won't be official for a bit. For starters, a U.S. bankruptcy court judge needs to sign off on the transaction. When it is final, the judgment funds will be set aside while Gawker appeals its court case; eventually the money will go to the side that wins.
Does this mean... (Score:4, Funny)
...their 15 daily "Fuck Trump" articles will be in Spanish now?
Bye Bye GAWKER (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Does this mean... (Score:4, Informative)
you mean illegal aliens entering our country. legal immigrants he has no problem with. please don't mix words.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No Dicks policy? So Trump is getting thrown out?
Re: (Score:1)
Depending on their religion.
I'm trying to think of the last leader of a first-world nation that had a problem with a particular religion, and singled them out for "extreme vetting". Nobody comes to mind.
http://static4.businessinsider... [businessinsider.com]
Re: Does this mean... (Score:1, Informative)
Carter banned Muslims from entering the country .
Re: Does this mean... (Score:4, Insightful)
Carter banned Muslims from entering the country .
No, he didn't. He banned Iranian nationals for a time, regardless of their religion and explicitly as a pressure tactic because of the hostage crisis.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think they were christian
Iran has christians, especially among the Armenian minority in the Northwest. They tend to be urbanized, and disproportionately likely to travel and trade internationally.
Re: Does this mean... (Score:2, Informative)
yeah like .3% when Muslims are 99.7%. fact is Carter a "liberal democrat" banned immigration for a Muslim population. u cant change it re word it or bend it. it happened.
Re: Does this mean... (Score:4, Informative)
He banned a SPECIFIC country's citizens who were extremely likely to be Muslim. He likely would have done the same if they were extremely likely to be Buddhist, maybe even Xtian.
Saudi Arabian Muslims - not banned, Iraqi Muslims - not banned, Yemeni Muslims - not banned, Nigerian Muslims - not banned
Re: Does this mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, but when I read about Trump's plan, that was exactly what he proposed. He wanted to ban all people coming from Syria. But I guess when you hate someone, you just need to find reasons for your hate, and not actually look at things for yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"and trump said in clear as day wording that he wants to block immigration from countries where terrorism is rampant. big difference from banning all muslims"
That's what he's saying *now*. I imagine that flip-floppin', loose-lipped bozo will change his tune again before the election.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
"In a semantic softening of his previous position restricting immigrants or visitors from Muslim-majority countries, Trump said he would “temporarily suspend immigration from some of the mo
Re: (Score:2)
Love? I HATE all the candidates. They are ALL horrible!
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, but when I read about Trump's plan, that was exactly what he proposed. He wanted to ban all people coming from Syria. But I guess when you hate someone, you just need to find reasons for your hate, and not actually look at things for yourself.
Does that include not looking at Trump's own website?? How exactly does "total & complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" equate "all people coming from Syria"?
BTW, Syria has millions of Christians how does banning them protect America from Muslim hate?
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/p... [donaldjtrump.com]
"- DECEMBER 07, 2015 -
DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION
(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the Un
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I think we understand him just fine.
Take a good look at the Trump supporters especially the ones who've been showing up at all the raillies and then look at ones who've supported the previous GOP candidates.
You want a old white billionaire to run for President? Fine - ask Buffett, Bloomberg or even Perot. At least we know they're truly self-made billionaires and not likely to dicker, duck, dance, dive and dodge over releasing their tax returns.
I'm sure theirs are just as huge, beautiful, complex and int
Re: (Score:2)
secondly yes, i see the trump supporters, the ones NOT being used by the media, the mom and dad and 8 year old kid riding his bike wishing the cops wont bring him home and call his parents bad parents because he was riding his bike off his property The single dad working 2 jobs to care for his children and cant afford more in taxes. I see these people
now compare them to the people on the other side. yeah, ill take trumps supporters (the real ones, not
Re: (Score:2)
"The single dad working 2 jobs to care for his children and cant afford more in taxes"
there are plenty people like that all across America and many of them won't vote for Trump.
As for his remarks on Mexicans, I spent a couple weeks in CA 2 years ago and saw a LOT of Mexicans everywhere - and every fucking one of them was WORKING. I don't know how many, if any, were illegal, but they weren't raping or dealing drugs, they all had jobs.
The lady and young man who greeted me at the hotel around 11:30 pm - Mexica
Re: (Score:3)
"I don't think they were christian"
Perhaps they were Baha'is, leaving Iran to avoid persecution.
BTW the persecution of Baha'is is still happening in Iran
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they were christian and the point is the president has that power.
Iranian Christians do exist, now mostly in Arizona and California.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do you not remember that Iran invaded US soil and captured Americans and held them hostage in a hostage situation funded by RNC in exchange for illegal arms and funding? It was suspected at the time, and dismissed as a conspiracy theory, but has since been 1
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
hostage situation funded by RNC
Citations please. It's not in the Wikipedia article.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
http://i64.tinypic.com/um2w1.j... [tinypic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
what? Reagan's own national address consisting of an apology for lying about trading arms for hostages isn't good enough for you mods?
Re: Does this mean... (Score:1)
Jesus mows my lawn.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
,br>Have you not been listening? Or are you just selectively listening to justify your bigotry?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not unconstitutional to block immigration based on religion. You have no constitutional rights unless you're a citizen or already in the country.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You have no constitutional rights unless you're a citizen or already in the country.
That's debatable. The US blocked suits about Guantanamo to ensure no court case made it to the Supreme Court to rule on that. And the wording on rights is ambiguous. Some are "citizen". Others are "people". And still others are restrictions on Congress. The third, and possibly the second would apply to foreign non-citizens, while the first wouldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
No, our Constitution simply doesn't hold any weight in other countries. It doesn't grant foreigners rights that citizens enjoy, nor does it guarantee those rights to our citizens outside the U.S. For example, you're not going fly into Dubai and successfully invoke your 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment rights to say what you want, when you want, while open-carrying your handgun and guarding your possessions from unreasonable search and seizure when they come for you.
If our own citizens aren't protected by the C
Re: Does this mean... (Score:4, Insightful)
And rightfully so. They are prisoners of war, not guests in the Hamptons.
Actually they are *not* prisoners of war, and that's the whole conundrum about them.
Re: (Score:2)
"No, our Constitution simply doesn't hold any weight in other countries."
You're forgetting about the Because We Have Nukes clause, which grants the FBI controlling legal status in New Zealand.
Re: (Score:2)
i have no issue with this.
Re: (Score:3)
Nor does it grant rights to US citizens. It enumerates certain of the unalienable rights that all people have been endowed with by their Creator (notwithstanding that those rights are routinely trampled on by governments of all persuasions) See the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Troll? Really? Mind-boggling.
Re: (Score:1)
The constitution only prohibits considering someone's religious beliefs if they are doing politics. Also, no country is obligated to allow people in, and are free to open and close their borders as they wish, and let people in based on what criteria they want. This is the right of a sovereign nation by virtue of its existence. Even if their laws and constitution say otherwise, the strength of a nation's borders is determined entirely by who has the bigger club.
Also, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) literally grants the pr
Re: (Score:2)
What comments are you reading about? The comments I saw were specifically talking about the crime committed against the illegal immigrants, and that he wanted to build a wall to stop illegal immigration. Where do you get the idea it was against legal immigration? Please provide citations to Trump's exact words calling for immigrants from Mexico being denied entry into the US.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
you mean illegal aliens entering our country. legal immigrants he has no problem with.
It's native-born judges of Mexican lineage that he has a problem with.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
you mean illegal aliens entering our country. legal immigrants he has no problem with.
It's native-born judges of Mexican lineage that he has a problem with.
And by that, I assume you mean "native-born judges of Mexican lineage and whom is a member of an anti-white racist orginization, an organization that has taken strong positions against Trump.
So Trump's beef with Judge Curiel is totally with merit. Curiel shouldn't be anywhere near the case due to the conflict of interest.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, he only hates half of people's families.
wonder how the other half feels about that, and how that might make them vote.
Re: (Score:2)
he pretty much just doesn't like Mexicans, unless he's paying them substandard wages to work for him as visitor workers cheaper than US citizens would.
http://www.theflama.com/5-quot... [theflama.com]
You mean illegals. (Score:3, Informative)
There's no immigration in illegal alien.
El Show de Xuxa (Score:3)
Today I learned... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
....that Hulk Hogan's penis is vibrant....
especially after he's made a racist remark about African-Americans
too bad (Score:1)
I was hoping Peter Thiel would buy it out of spite...
Re: (Score:2)
GOOAAALL! (Score:2)
Watch out TRUMP! (Score:1)
Watch out Trump! Soon you may find yourself in Gawker's Crosshairs!
die die die (Score:1)
Bring back bullying (Score:2, Interesting)
"Ultimately #GamerGate is reaffirming what we've known to be true for decades: nerds should be constantly shamed and degraded into submission."
-- Sam Biddle, senior writer, Gawker Media
OK now let's hear about the big bad man that launched a lawsuit and brought down this horrid organization for clearly crossing the line. It's a freedom of speech issue, amirite? Like how it was OK for them to post Hulk Hogan, but when the same thing happened to Jennifer Lawrence it was wrong.
Gawker on Hulk: "We love to wat
Re: (Score:1)
Remember, gays are only a protected culture if they agree with the SJW narrative!
I beg to differ (Score:4, Insightful)
We could not have picked an acquirer more devoted to vibrant journalism.
Really? Univision is one of the reasons I came to understand how blatant the liberal bias in the US media is. For example, there are lots of (legal) immigrants and children of immigrants who believe, now brace yourselves, that people who come to the US illegally are in fact criminals and that the right thing to do is to enforce the law. However, watching Univision's coverage of immigration-related matters, you will never hear anything about those people. All you will hear is how we need amnesty now. Come to think of it, they are really no different than any other major media outlet.
Vibrant journalism indeed. I once had a great deal of respect for Univision and their news people, but they have certainly proved they are biased. For example, according to Univision hispanic/latino/a Democrat politicians are held in high regard because of how their ethnic background helps them better understand the plight of the common latino/a in this country. However, hispanic/latino/a Republicans are considered sell outs and are demonized. Come to think of it, black politicians suffer the same problem. You can't be ethnic and go against the approved group-think.
I'll probably get modded into oblivion, but it's the truth.
Re:I beg to differ (Score:4, Insightful)
George Washington = anchor baby
Re: (Score:1)
people didn't just show up here with out going through a legal process.
The natives who were here before the English might quibble with "legal."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
people didn't just show up here with out going through a legal process.
The natives who were here before the English might quibble with "legal."
Can you define what you mean by "natives"?
Of course it's a very convenient way to bundle many different people in a same category and paint them as innocent victims of the evil white invaders, although various tribes (with different languages and customs) had been invading and slaughtering each other for generations before. That's like saying that Germans and French and Brits are all "Europeans" as if they hadn't massacred each other since the dark ages.
White bashing is not courageous, it's not self-righteo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I beg to differ (Score:4, Insightful)
people didn't just show up here with out going through a legal process
They took everyone who came off the boat. And most of them worked out quite well, thank you very much.
So are the new immigrants, documented or otherwise. They're filling needed jobs and helping to keep the local economies moving by doing tough, dirty, and low-paying work that most citizens don't want. Storekeepers don't want some to hire some rich kid who'll quit after three weeks because the work isn't what the precious little brat expected. They have businesses to run. The fact that many immigrants have fewer options makes them more desireable. That was true in 1700 and 1845 and 1870 and 1920 and 1980. That's what America is.
Re: (Score:3)
That's nonsense. Immigrants have always been subject to inspections and requirements to fit societal standards. Storekeepers and others also freely practiced discrimination (Jews, Irish, Germans, Asians, etc.).
http://www.history.com/news/9-... [history.com]
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-... [vox.com]
http://www.museumoffamilyhisto... [museumoffa...istory.com]
http://journalofethics.ama-ass... [ama-assn.org]
http://cis.org/HistoryIdeologi... [cis.org]
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with either side on this debate. I'm saying that the setting of standards and rejecting immigrants who
Re: I beg to differ (Score:5, Insightful)
They're filling needed jobs and helping to keep the local economies moving by doing tough, dirty, and low-paying work that most citizens don't want.
This is what I don't get. The problem isn't that citizens won't do the jobs. The problem is that employers don't want to pay what the market demands. Do you realize that the argument you make is the exact same argument used by those support expanding the H1B program? Heck, why even bother? Just tell tech companies to start hiring illegal immigrants because citizens don't want to do the tough, dirty, low paying job of developing software or managing IT systems.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
That +3 insightful post is even worse than what you believe. That same reasoning, "They're filling needed jobs and helping the local economies moving by doing though, dirty work" is the same reasoning many in the south used to defend the ownership of slaves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that people pay $0.10 more for a McShit burger, and the McShit shareholders won't tolerate paying more than maximises profit, every possible saving is made. That includes not paying a living wage. Immigrants tend to be more desperate than people born into western societies, so are more willing to work three minimum wage jobs and live in a house with 20 other people, at least for a few years until they work their way up.
Cutting off that supply of labour won't magically make McShit Burger start
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the problem is the race to the bottom. If some providers in a market are using inexpensive labor, others who want to compete with them also have to use inexpensive labor; otherwise they will lose business to the providers with the cheap labor. There are some cases where the company can use the fact that they are using high priced labor in their marketing, and survive despite having higher prices than their competition. But that will only work on a fraction of the market; McDonald's and Walmart can't
Re: I beg to differ (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats in 1860: "If we free the slaves, who'll pick the cotton?"
Democrats in 2016: "If we enforce immigration and labor laws, who'll pick the tomatos?"
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the current Republican response is to only bring in people we need, and by documenting them give them protection of our labor laws. The problem today is unscrupulous employers can underpay illegal immigrants and violate labor and safety regulations and the illegals can't complain. Document them and make the same laws apply to everyone.
Re: I beg to differ (Score:1)
Plantation act of 1740. If u came to the colonies undocumented or not formally u were considered an illegal alien.
Re: (Score:2)
Weird.
Re: (Score:1)
there are lots of (legal) immigrants...
Sounds like my neighbors. Pretty much all of them. It's a real PITA to come here legally and should be fixed rather than going around the laws. When you do this and it is accepted, there's no pressure to change the laws and makes everyone a criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
Univision, like the other major Spanish language media sources in the US, has biases. All of the big Spanish language players share the positions you name, because they are also the opinions of the majority of Latinos in the US. I have seen contrary opinions expressed in smaller newspapers and magazines.
Despite its imperfections, I do find Univision to be a useful counterpoint to what the English language media are saying. They report stories that the English language media are ignoring, and take different
What did they get for $135 million (Score:1)
Besides a guarantee of continued harassment from Hulk Hogan's lawyers?
Just asking.
Soros bailing out one of his cronies (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck Univision and Gawker.
Seven? (Score:1)
Univision's offer will encompass all seven of Gawker Media's sites
Gawker, Gizmodo, Deadpan, Jalopnik, Jezebel, Kotaku, Lifehacker, Fleshbot.
I count eight.
Or did Univision not get Fleshbot in the deal
Interesting move. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like lifehacker and Jalopnik The rest not so much.