Kinja reply list

Read More
Gen FatasseryJohn Cook
5/17/13 1:28pm
This is the same company that gave Zach Braff shit when he asked for crowd sourced money? If Zach Braff has two million dollars Nick Denton definitely has 200,000.

The amount of publicity Gawker would get off this tape would be worth more than $200,000. The fact that you guys are asking people to pay for it with nothing offered in return is a little disgusting.
Reply
- Read More
  gramercypoliceGen Fatassery
  5/17/13 1:31pm
  Based on this comment, I would say you definitely shouldn't contribute.
  Reply
- Read More
  AliHajiSheikGen Fatassery
  5/17/13 1:48pm
  I gave them $25 because I am really interested in seeing this bloated man get high as fuck, but I completely agree. There is nothing different with John Cook and Nick Denton asking for money to enable Gawker to obtain content and generate page views to make money for Gawker and Zach Braff asking for money to produce content and enable him to sell tickets and make money from a movie.
  Reply
Read More
lobstrJohn Cook
5/17/13 1:39pm
I will donate $100 right now if you promise me this:

...that when you do the exchange, you film it re-creating the parking garage scene from Trading Places where you step out from the shadows, display a briefcase with $200,000 in cash, asking what the password is...

(Bonus points for Level Orange.)
Reply
- Read More
  Swiftfoxlobstr
  5/17/13 3:32pm
  Hopefully they get a briefcase of information about Orange Juice futures.
  Reply
- Read More
  lobstrSwiftfox
  5/17/13 4:09pm
  Imagine the looks on everyone's faces at Gawker when they return from Toronto with a big envelope ready to rub one out to some hot mayoral pipe action, only to find it has this year's crop estimates from the Secretary of Agriculture.
  
  Turn those machines back onnnn!
  Reply
Read More
A_Copy_EditorJohn Cook
5/20/13 9:52am
Okay, so I have to ask a question. In a previous post, you implied you'd have bought the video with your own/Gawker Media's own funds: "The trouble is, the owner wants money. More money than I am willing to pay." But now it sounds like the owner of the video wants 200K for the video. And from what I am understanding, you would now be spending no money on the video, as the entire 200K is to be raised via crowdfunding.

I understand you are giving away some perks with higher-amount donations. In aggregate, does the cost of all those perks to you/Gawker Media equal what you were willing to spend on the video originally?

I don't really have a problem with how you get your money. I'm just wanting to understand the mechanics of this transaction. Seems to me, you've somehow turned an unaffordable price tag into quite the opportunity: Pay no money for the video, have your readers pay for it; post the video, get massive traffic and even more exposure (new traffic), and this new traffic all results in more money for Gawker Media. Is that right?

In that same previous post, you said: "The tipster has already reached out to one other news outlet, a Canadian organization that he refused to name, which offered $40,000." So we can safely assume that you what you were willing to pay is less than 40K. Let's say it was half of that: 20K. I don't think the cost of all those "crackstarter" perks will amount to anywhere near 20K. Dinner with Gawker staff includes no travel expense. The hand-drawn still from the video is made by a staff, which means that would be covered by either an existing salary or additional hourly (or however you do it) compensation. The big prize, which is the iPhone, is not an additional expense since it's the phone you're presumably getting with the 200K.

Again, I don't have a problem with this as much as I'm looking for some clarity, or to quench my own curiosity. I wonder, let's say you were willing to pay 20K for the vid. What if your crackstarter tops out at 180K? Will you cover the rest since that's what you'd have originally paid? (The 20K is a hypothetical number. So adjust the equation with whatever the real number is.)

Just seems to me that by passing all this cost to your readers, you're not just increasing your buying power, you're significantly increasing your profit margins.

Okay, hateful comments...GO!
Reply
- Read More
  invalidscreennameisaninvalidscreennameA_Copy_Editor
  5/21/13 1:57am
  I had the exact same thought. I had thought of posting the same question but it doesn't looked like John Cook is participating in these conversations. The original story had a conversation started by user Cill Bosby who wanted to start a pool to get some money together because...why not?...mayors and crack...good times for all. Then user raincoaster put together a page on indiegogo (http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/buy-t…) which had a bit of cash in it for a while...the page is now gone...but this is clearly where the idea emerged from...but I would like to know if the pool does hit 180,000 or something if gawker is going to donate the final 20,000...i don't really care either way...if it gets that close and it looks like they won't get it through donations i hope they do....gawker and readers take down a crackhead mayor....pretty awesome...if it looks like they can get the money without kicking in that's cool too...i'm sure they've already had the discussion of what they would kick in to push it over the top if needed...at a certain point they'd be losing money by not paying into it if that's what it takes, right? I'd say your 20,0000 is pretty close, but i bet they'd be willing to go a little above that if the deadline is minutes away and they need 26,000 to get there,,be a bit of an embarassment to promote this post for a week and not get what needs to be got
  Reply
- Read More
  Free Market Party CompanyA_Copy_Editor
  5/22/13 1:47am
  They've already contributed $15k, and are likely covering IndieGogo's commission. Give them a break already.
  Reply
Read More
Manuel WolffJohn Cook
5/17/13 8:14pm
Wow. I'm not giving a penny. I don't need to see the video and I don't need to give a thug $200,000. The damage is already done, he'll probably step down sooner or later.

Plus - most celebs do drugs, even some on your staff do drugs. No big deal.

Big deal, though, is that you are asking your readers for money to give to a drug dealer or criminal. That's the true crime here.
Reply
- Read More
  ramona quimbyManuel Wolff
  5/18/13 6:52pm
  While I agree with you that handing $200,000 to a drug dealer isn't a great idea, it is absolutely a huge fucking deal if the mayor is smoking crack. It's your prerogative if you want to do drugs (and we're not talking about weed, obviously), but you can't smoke crack and be the mayor. Pick one, cause you can't have both.
  Reply
- Read More
  Manuel Wolfframona quimby
  5/19/13 10:28am
  Yes, I agree that a mayor shouldn't be doing drugs. But - we now already know that he's been doing drugs. We don't need to give 200,000 to a drug dealer just to see proof.
  
  Plus: He's not the only mayor doing drugs.
  Reply
Read More
EchoOverTheVoiceJohn Cook
5/22/13 7:52pm
I guess I'm confused. 1. You seem like a pretty legit site with a lot of integrity. Is there a reason you want to help destroy this man? Like you're kinda foaming at the mouth over it. Don't get me wrong if he's a bad dude he's a bad dude but shouldn't you be helping to remove him from office by doing a really well researched piece? 2. Why are you asking other people for their hard earned money? It doesn't seem possible that you don't have 200k sitting in your account . . . Oh I see. This isn't about money is it. You're tapping into the mob mentality. You're ALLOWING your readers to participate in the destruction of another human being. That's really sweet. And these sellers who were hanging out at a crack house . . . you want to give them 200k for . . . what? More drugs? Maybe a new shop? I could be off but did you think that far ahead or are you only concerned with breaking the story? I don't think I'm going to come back to this or any of your other blogs. You're kinda gross.
Reply
- Read More
  Free Market Party CompanyEchoOverTheVoice
  5/26/13 6:22am
  You seem to be willing to blame everybody except for the obvious: the Toronto Mayor who was SMOKING CRACK ON CAMERA. That doesn't bother you at all?
  
  Quit claiming that Rob Ford is being somehow victimized here when this entire situation has arisen from his own choices.
  Reply
- Read More
  EchoOverTheVoiceFree Market Party Company
  5/26/13 2:23pm
  No.
  Reply
Read More
EmanzeJohn Cook
5/17/13 3:55pm
Here go! The Rush Limbaugh/Rob Ford morph. Sorry I don't have more than that right now..this is a pretty fascinating story, I'm lapping it up like a drooling dog. But every picture of Ford is making me instantly twitchy. Likely PTSD from the 90's and the army of dittoheads.

Reply
- Read More
  KrantzstoneEmanze
  5/18/13 6:20am
  That's what gets me most about Rob Ford: I don't care that much if he smokes crack on his own time as it's his health and body to destroy, but I care when he talks hard about cracking down on drug addicts with absolutely no sympathy for people with addiction issues, while he's out there late at night smoking crack while on the public payroll.
  
  “You’re not helping them, you’re enabling them... They’re going to smoke that crack whether you give them those crack pipes or not. They’re going to shoot that heroin whether you give them clean needles or not. If people want a change, it has to come from within.”
  - quote from Rob Ford when he was arguing against implementing harm reduction programs in Toronto
  (http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/17/if-…)
  
  Rob Ford needs some tough love.
  Reply
- Read More
  FnarsbourgEmanze
  5/18/13 7:49am
  Hopping fuck I thought that was Two-Face for a second.
  Reply
Read More
lobstrJohn Cook
5/17/13 1:30pm
Would we at least get executive producer credit?

30 seconds of politician crack smokin' followed by a half hour of scrolling credits with Gawker screen names would, sadly, be kinda awesome :[]
Reply
- Read More
  iusedtobesomeonelobstr
  5/17/13 1:56pm
  I might have to buy in for that.
  Reply
- Read More
  Mercury: The Sweetest Of The Transition Metalslobstr
  5/17/13 2:17pm
  I will donate $25 if my S/N gets an EP credit.
  Reply
Read More
hilikusopusJohn Cook
5/17/13 2:05pm
I have almost no experience haggling for scandalous videos, but it would seem to me that the bargaining position of the owner has markedly deteriorated since Gawker inadvertently spilled the beans to Ford's office. Ford or one of his cronies likely have deduced who the owner is by now, based on the video's reported content.
Reply
- Read More
  ihave2catshilikusopus
  5/17/13 2:23pm
  It was the Toronto Star that spilled the beans, but yeah, agreed.
  Reply
- Read More
  hilikusopusihave2cats
  5/17/13 2:28pm
  From John Cook's post last night:
  
  ...When I emailed an acquaintance at CNN this afternoon, laying out much the same information I've offered above and asking for discretion and confidentiality lest we screw up a pretty fucking great story about the mayor of the fifth-largest city in North America smoking crack cocaine on camera, he forwarded the email to his producer. The producer, in turn, asked CNN's Canada reporter about it. The Canada reporter—and this was a pretty fucking big mistake—called a source who used to work in Ford's office. Within 40 minutes, word had gotten back to me that "CNN called Ford's office asking about a crack tape...." And so here we are. The owner still hasn't found a buyer with pockets deep enough to meet his demands. But word is out around Toronto now that the tape exist, and Ford's circle knows about it courtesy a CNN reporter.
  Reply
Read More
RolodexJohn Cook
5/17/13 2:58pm
So wait. The readership pays for the video, and Gawker gets the exclusive, traffic and exposure, and ad revenue? Is that a likely business plan for the network going forward?

And isn't Gawker's editorial line on all things economy/finance related roughly "the bastards make the people pay for their screw-ups but keep the profits for themselves?" Am I the only one feeling kind of a disconnect here?
Reply
- Read More
  KRITIK4LM4SSRolodex
  5/17/13 3:45pm
  No, you're not alone...
  Reply
- Read More
  alydarRolodex
  5/17/13 4:42pm
  Gawker makes plenty of money recycling the information other people have dug up. How about we crowd fund something more worthwhile than "Thatz Not Okay"?
  Reply
Read More
Mrs. BeetonJohn Cook
5/17/13 2:04pm
Did they specify Canadian or US dollars?
Reply
- Read More
  hilikusopusMrs. Beeton
  5/17/13 2:08pm
  I don't know but $200,000 is looney.
  Reply
- Read More
  Rock Golfhilikusopus
  5/17/13 3:21pm
  No, it's 200,000 loonies. Or 100,000 toonies.
  Reply