You realize that new owners will inevitably bring in a new editorial mandate, yes? Gawker and its properties have name recognition, and that's what's being bought. If you want to scare away investors, you'd need to argue that nobody has ever heard of Gawker. Literally no one cares about old articles.

>>324725 The only people who'd buy a cheap blog brand would be someone who wants the same sort of audience- fast. Ideal for people who want to push agendas. I can't see Gawker being converted into a newspaper, with deep insightful commentary. If you buy-out a film studio, you keep making the genre of films they did. If you buy-out a chain of restaurants, you keep serving the style of food they do. If you don't you lose the people who are already fans of the brand- and by that point you might as well start fresh. Anyone buying Gawker wants to keep it clickbait. Not to mention their target demographic (i.e. Morons) are easily swayed. In other words, Gawker is selling a batch of mouth-breathing Normalfags ready to have an agenda planted into their head by whatever drivel is written up. And the new owner would know all the mistakes the old one did, and how to counter Gamergate (possibly continue to write anti-nerd, anti-male, anti-white articles- but double down. Let an SJW fan base defend, shill, and legitimize them). Letting Gawker come back; under any ownership, is embarrassing for GG. It shows that you can't "shut down" anyone. Did something bad? Don't worry, someone else will pick up the reigns and carry on. You play whack-a-mole for years and while you focus on one company, the other 2 are pushing agendas merrily. Having Gawker truly go down in flames makes it historic. Makes it an event. Sends a warning flare up to anyone else who tries to cross GG or gets in your crosshairs. EA getting 2 Golden Turd awards damaged their reputation- if they'd have gotten a third developers would have been on notice that the consumer is listening (it took some serious shilling by them to get other companies to win to avoid it). Gawker needs to be tombstone- not a bloody nose.

>>324735 Not exactly true. About a decade ago, Newsweek almost got bought out by a conservative publishing group that put out a conservative rag called "Newsmax". Newsmax sold like shit, so the owners SPECIFICALLY made a major bid to buy Newsweek, so he could fire the writers/editorial staff and basically reassign the name to Newsmax. Basically buying the name to use it to trick people into buying a magazine with a fundamentally different tone and agenda. (Ironically, when this was leaked, the backlash amongst the media was so great that the owner of Newsweek had to turn down the deal and sold the magazine to a fellow liberal, who IIRC, ended up having to turn it into a digital only magazine, for .001% of what Newsmax would have paid for just the name.) Similarly, Rupert Murdoch bought National Geographic Magazine and immediately started culling staffers and forcing pro-religion puff pieces. Granted, Denton will most definitely want to keep Gawker and it's brands in the hands of his fellow lunatic fringe left kool aid drinkers. But he may be desperate enough to sell it to others who don't share his SJW views if the money is high enough. Or if the people buying can hide their opposing views long enough to complete purchase.

Also people buy brands/change brands regardless of the base. From comic companies killing off white heroes to harvest their names for affirmative action heroes no one would buy unless they mistakenly think it's the previous white hero (Blue Beetle, Question, Firestorm, among others have fallen dead for this purpose). Also, restaurant chains have been bought out simply for the real estate so that a rival chain can put their fundamentally different type of food wise restaurant in there instead. And movie studios are even worse: buy a rival studio simply for one or two properties that are valuable and fuck everything else. Or buying a studio for it's back catalog and kill the actual studio, so you can make money syndicating the movies on TV or selling them on DVD, with the cavet being that there is a good chance that only a handful of titles actually seeing the light on DVD depending on whether or not the studio gives a fuck on making a return on their investment buying said back catalog. Ironically some of the Gawker sites would thrive under new management, who would cull the staff 100% and replace them with others. Just to get the name. The only way they double down is if Gawker sells to fellow kool aid drinkers. And Denton's not in a big position to do so. To get cash he'll need to fight the Hogan lawsuit, he'll have to sell to his enemy, politics be damned, because a man in his dire straights can't be choosy when they need big bucks in a fire sale.

>>324738 >>324740 Don't bother. OP is convinced of his own genius. Let him waste his own time.

As NeoGAF would say: "Fucking Gamergators!"

>>324738 >(Blue Beetle, Question, Blue Beetle turned out to be awesome in his own right, and Question wasn't awful either, though she never reached the heights of the original.

Reyes failed so badly that the fans of Brave and the Bold embraced fucking Aquaman (and a campy comedy version of Aquaman at that) over Jaime Reyes. And that the writers moved heaven and earth to bring Ted back into that show, via time travel/flashback highjacks. And Renee becoming Question rendered THAT character irreversibly radioactive, to the point that they declared her an unperson for the bulk of the New 52. And that when they finally brought her back, they had to pretty much erase her being Question from canon to salvage her. Hell, even the suits making the DC Universe films prefer Ted over Jamie, hence why the TV folks were embargoed from using Ted since they intend the blue in planned "Blue and Gold" film to be Ted.

>>324758 >Reyes failed so badly that the fans of Brave and the Bold embraced fucking Aquaman (and a campy comedy version of Aquaman at that) over Jaime Reyes. And that the writers moved heaven and earth to bring Ted back into that show, via time travel/flashback highjacks. BatB Aquaman was great as a swashbuckler though, campy swashbuckler is still swashbuckling. Reyes wasn't that terrible but not very good either. Kinda boring, the kamen rider symbiotic alientech suit was probably more interesting than Reyes. polite sahgay for not op related. Though on the op, does anyone want to seriously buy gawker and gawker accessories? I thought that one russian interest got cold feet.

>>324761 >buy gawker and gawker accessories?

here's a wild and very out there idea to generate maximum salt, what if we pooled our money and bought Gawker right out from under Nick Denton and then renamed it something like The Vivian Post or something like that to really rub the salt in the wound of our enemies o let them know that their greatest resource now belongs to #gamergate. and then harvest the resulting avalanche of salt.

>>324785 I would not give denton or any gawker and gawker affiliates a single cent. Not even to buy it to rename it for salt. The only salt I want to see is denton realizing gawker is now a millstone around his neck, and no one wants to buy it off him. If Thiel gets Gawker, I dont want to see a new Gawker run by Thiel either. I pray to mighty kek if that happens, gawker will be named "Atomic Leg Drop formerly known as gawker", and will only host one vid rel file on an infinite loop, ala ytmnd.

>>324786 I'm thinking long term goals leader, think about it, if we bought Gawker we could turn it into an info hub for our cause and put our enemy's stupidity on blast for the entire world to see the idiocy of the aGGros/sjws/corrupt journos. and with Gawker under our control we can take down the entire digra network from within, burning the whole corrupt system to the ground in the process and building a new, pure, system in its place.

buying gawker would be suicidal

>>324808 Maybe we should encourage Ralph to buy Gawker.

>>324802 No, Boromir, just no. I understand the temptation but as >>324735 correctly points out. >Gawker needs to be tombstone- not a bloody nose. >burning the whole corrupt system to the ground in the process and building a new, pure, system in its place. Boromir, no. That's your ring finger talking. Stop thinking with your ring finger.

https://twitter.com/wsj/status/741314481855287296 >Breaking: Gawker Media to seek bankruptcy, will be put up for auction after costly legal battle with Hulk Hogan

>>324765 I'm legitimately curious how much it would cost to buy Gawker, and if we could manage to do that. Not that it would be a remotely intelligent idea, but I'm just curious if we could.

Biddle is moving to The Intercept. Warn them. Or rather, let everyone know they picked up an anchor.

>>325045 https://twitter.com/samfbiddle/status/742432786871685120 https://archive.is/p39s7

>>325045 Everyone knows Biddle is cancer incarnate. They don't care or are too fucking scared to make him persona non-grata cause he has a rich and powerful daddy who will ruin people if they stand up to his monster son. It's why he never got fired from Gawker BTW; Biddle constantly threatened to bring his daddy in to make Denton and co's lives miserable if they ever did anything to penalize him for using his platform with Gawker to cyberbully tech workers and preach pro-bullying rhetoric on Twitter

>no one's posted all this yet Come on people I swear

And here's some ammo

latest gawker blog https://archive.is/Wf9E1

>>325142 Denton is doing his all to convince potential bidders that gawker brand is not a yuuuge boat anchor.

Gawker Is a Poisonous Revenge Porn Site That Corrupts Everything It Touches, Including Ziff Davis http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/06/21/ziff-davis-will-toxify-their-brand-by-buying-gawker/ https://twitter.com/Nero/status/745360193932902400

>>325354 That's a pretty good boost. In the short term that is not good though that zif davis is buying gawker, and denton might be kept on as consultant.

>>324725 Or that they have a dedicated group of people that want them to loose money. Because it's fucking personal.

Are we gathering the email addresses of the company buying them out? What about that companies share holders?

>>325588 Or for that matter who are Gawker's creditors?

Hulk Hogan Says Gawker Made Secret $200K Loan to Nick Denton Before Bankruptcy http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/hulk-hogan-says-gawker-made-908597 >Hulk Hogan doesn't think that Gawker's Chapter 11 should save Nick Denton from having to declare personal bankruptcy. In new filings on Tuesday, Hogan's lawyers accuse Denton of doing things like getting a pre-bankruptcy loan from Gawker and making misrepresentations to a Florida court.

Tomorrow the auction of Gawker and Kotaku begins. It might be too late to get something trending (#BuyKotakuIf or #BuyGawkerIf), so we'll have to tag-jack something economic to get their attention. Even after the sale, remind them all what Gawker and Kotaku did. Letting Kotaku stand shows you can get away with publishing lies, and the entire demographic you're supposed to be working for working against you- as long as someone buys you out when your down. Letting Gawker stand shows you can get away with clickbait, lies, and slander, and even MILLIONS in debt- as long as someone buys you out when your down. It would be humiliating to GG to let them stand. Don't let it happen.

>>326664 Sounds like a good time to start tweeting out messages linking to archived copies of the Gawker articles promoting paedophilia and bestiality. Let anybody stupid enough to buy Gawker get that steaming pile of shit associated with their brand name immediately.

>>324724 >ruin gawker's name further >wait until some idiot has paid off it's debt >buy it up (should be cheap) >make it into a gamergate hub :^)(^:

>>324724 The CMS. Kinja is the product, the dogshit that they put through is a demonstration.