This is a bad documentary.

>>84616599
we know

>>84616599
I only caught parts of this story when it was in the news. From what I heard Gawker was in the wrong. I watched the trailer for this and they make it seem like the case was about Trump trying to end free speech. Can someone explain that shit to me?

>>84616666
Liberals spinning a story to make themselves look good.

>>84616666
Jews anon. It's called inversion they play victim and accuse the actual victims of the crimes they perpetuate. It's a means of deflection

>>84616666
They spend the first 3/4 of the movie making Gawker look like the good guys and presenting them as a rag tag group of journalists who are out to provide the public with the truth no matter the cost, then big bad hulk hogan came through to try and ruin them with the help of a billionaire (who they also happened to expose/make up intimate details about).
the last 1/4 is about trump disrespecting journalists and calling them fake news.

>>84616802
The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.

>>84616761
>>84616802
So the fappening leakers were the good guys after all?

>>84616599
I have no sympathy for Gawker. Why would anyone sympathize with Gawker?

capcha: Wokefield

>>84616882
who said they were?

>>84616914
The first amendment.

File: gawker stalker.jpg (127KB, 800x541px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 800x541px

>>84616837
>Gawker look like the good guys and presenting them as a rag tag group of journalists who are out to provide the public with the truth no matter the cost

Gawker was always trash

>>84616896

Oh hey its this fucktard again.

>>84616837
>provide the public the truth no matter the cost.
Any cursory glance at gawkers headlines would be enough to debunk that premise. What a bunch of bullshit

>>84616882
According to this doc. Free speech and all.

>>84616944
How? It isn't free speech.

File: gffdsgs.png (94KB, 587x555px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 587x555px

>>84616961

But anon don't you want to know about how selena got a tampon unstuck?

File: COQ0I5]WSYFH5HNL9T])V3A.jpg (89KB, 1011x592px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1011x592px

>>84616896
But I just finished watching it completely. That's why I made this thread.

The bias isn't even well hidden. They shoot all the gawker guys in these lush environments with plants and soft lighting and warm color grading. The Hogan side (of which they intereviewed ONE person) is shot up close with harsh shadows as to accentuate imperfections, and colorgraded to make them look cold and lifeless.

This isn't a liberal vs conservative or left vs right thing. It's just a really biased movie which tells a story incredibly skewed and poorly.

Pic related is Gawker's founder in the movie.

>>84616999
But this documentary taught me that posting someone's sex tape is free speech and very important journalistic work.

>>84617084
Well I guess if the Documentary says so...

File: GHKOXAW]FV9@F}]1EYH`9YX.jpg (92KB, 1092x652px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1092x652px

>>84617081
And here is the sole Gawker opposition that they actually bothered to interview.

>>84616666
A billionaire who Gawker publicly humiliated financed Hogan's case pro bono, and nobody mourned Gawker when they went under so they spun this as some sort of harrowing assault on the press because the left has been handwringing about the decline of journalism and Trump's anti-press sentiment and it was a convenient way to gain sympathy. It's actually pretty pathetic.

File: taleb on gawker.png (25KB, 389x191px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 389x191px

>>84617081
>Pic related is Gawker's founder in the movie.

Who is also the one that put together the 'supercut' of the Hogan sex tape.

>>84616961
The ironic part is that as they had the Gawker "journalists" say shit like 'the story is the most important part' and 'we at gawker valued telling the real story above maintaining personal relationships', they were showing flashes of the retarded gawker headlines on screen

>>84617197
If they were getting sued over breaking an important story like the Flint water crisis, I'd be on board with them 100%. But they released a fucking sex tape. That's not journalism. I haven't watched this, but how do they spin this as a story that the public really needs to know about?

>>84617356
>I haven't watched this, but how do they spin this as a story that the public really needs to know about?

Peter Thiel payed for Hogans defense. Thiel has met with Trump on multiple occasions and is a libertarian. Thus it was an attack on freedom of the press or something.

>>84617356
They say that he doesn't care about the sex tape and he was trying to conceal the fact that he said nigger about 17 times in one of them which they argued actually would be news

>>84617388
Why are you on a board about film

File: sdfds.jpg (159KB, 350x431px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 350x431px

>>84617388

Yeah, using unflattering lighting doesnt mean shit

>>84617411
>he said nigger about 17 times in one of them
But that's not news either. Maybe if he was an important political figure or something. He's a famous wrestler, of course he's gonna say some stupid shit.

File: $)9H@CE(C5ZJ~W4DVR7([00.jpg (355KB, 622x863px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 622x863px

>>84617388
Do you understand anything about photography you dunce? They used a much closer light source for Hogan's lawyer. Makes the shadows much sharper and more defined, makes his skin look more wrinkled and focused on his imperfections(as does sitting him physically closer to the camera). They also shone the light directly into his face which makes his eyes look empty and soulless. The color grading is the most obvious part. The fucking papers on his desk are tinted blue, they've cooled it down so much. It's a stark contrast to the wide open shot of the laid back "good guy" in the lush garden environment with soft shadows and a warmer color temperature. As for the plants, framing matters. You're retarded.

>>84617495
I think you could argue that its news when a public figure says things of that nature. The thing is though, they even contradict themselves by saying that, because after the actual leak of the transcript happened that showed what he said, the Gawker founder said that "no one would have even heard that if it weren't for the trial" implying that he had no intention of releasing that part (the only part that he was trying to argue was actually news) in the first place.

>>84616599
didn't know about this till now OP, thanks for the heads up, I needed something to watch over dinner

>>84617548
>They also shone the light directly into his face which makes his eyes look empty and soulless.
Well shit, I wouldn't even realize, if you didn't say it. Good eye, anon. Are you working in the field?

>>84616872
That shit belongs on a fortune cookie

File: thanks 4plebs.png (14KB, 467x123px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 467x123px

>>84617388
>deleted

Imagine getting btfo so hard that you delete your post

But thanks to the archive everyone can see it forever.

File: 1484451384978.jpg (12KB, 480x295px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x295px

>>84617388
>gets BTFO
>deletes post
every time

>>84618244
i'm a graphic designer but I took photography and portraiture in college