CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
6.5/10
4.5 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
El juicio entre Hulk Hogan y Gawker Media enfrentó derechos de privacidad contra la libertad de prensa y planteó preguntas importantes. Un examen de los peligros y deberes de la prensa libre... Leer todoEl juicio entre Hulk Hogan y Gawker Media enfrentó derechos de privacidad contra la libertad de prensa y planteó preguntas importantes. Un examen de los peligros y deberes de la prensa libre en una era de desigualdad.El juicio entre Hulk Hogan y Gawker Media enfrentó derechos de privacidad contra la libertad de prensa y planteó preguntas importantes. Un examen de los peligros y deberes de la prensa libre en una era de desigualdad.
- Premios
- 4 nominaciones en total
Emily Gould
- Self - Former Editor-in-Chief, Gawker.com
- (material de archivo)
Pamela Campbell
- Self - Judge
- (material de archivo)
Bubba the Love Sponge
- Self - Radio Host
- (material de archivo)
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
Using Gawnker as a 1st amendment example may not be entirely suitable.
First the Tabloid headlines are rather disgusted than admirable. Personally, I would not be drawn any attentions to its website not mentioning to read the contents. Secondly posting someone's sex tape even brought more gray areas. Subsequently, its bona fide intention became blurry and unpersuasive. It could have started with a well known media instead. However, there would be presentably much bigger challenges since most main stream ones including FOX News already have mighty legal teams to fend out such allegations. So I would say it's not a well thought out documentary. The idea was applicable. But its implementation lacked effectiveness.
Basically, Gawnker is not a media public would think has its value in the society. It essentially leeched on human ethics. Nevertheless. 1st amendment protects all voices even dark, unpleasant ones. This documentary might convey such a message. However, I am the least convinced of their innocence and that is the problem.
First the Tabloid headlines are rather disgusted than admirable. Personally, I would not be drawn any attentions to its website not mentioning to read the contents. Secondly posting someone's sex tape even brought more gray areas. Subsequently, its bona fide intention became blurry and unpersuasive. It could have started with a well known media instead. However, there would be presentably much bigger challenges since most main stream ones including FOX News already have mighty legal teams to fend out such allegations. So I would say it's not a well thought out documentary. The idea was applicable. But its implementation lacked effectiveness.
Basically, Gawnker is not a media public would think has its value in the society. It essentially leeched on human ethics. Nevertheless. 1st amendment protects all voices even dark, unpleasant ones. This documentary might convey such a message. However, I am the least convinced of their innocence and that is the problem.
A rocky start using a company that is just horrible and awful to human beings with a few good staffers, later takes a look at another company and a group of people who have nothing but my upmost respect for the work they do.
Frustrating but interesting.
Frustrating but interesting.
With the attractive tailor, I was hoping this would be an enlightening documentary on how the press has stoped to function in our neo libertarian society but it turned out mostly like an advert for Gawker media and the people who hurt them, lightly and indirectly reminding us of the power of politicians and businesses to influence free press, while showing the people of the press in a good light. To be honest, the press itself is corrupt and this film stayed clear from that topic, how news and media are as interconnected to the businesses and political powers that run the show, and editors as as much to blame for misguiding the pawn citizen in this global game of the people in power to become wealthier and more powerful. If you really want to see something eye-opening, the whole nexus of lies we live in, go watch Requiem for an American Dream.
Completely one sided film. The film sets out to make case that the free press is being silenced with money (a very broad description, but you'll see there are multiple ways the press is being "silenced" by the wealthy), but fails at every turn to prove it, or to even to make journalists sympathetic characters.
Shot in foot #1: Claiming Gawker is a bastion of truth and had every right to share Hulk Hogans sex tape online.
There is, of course, the Peter Thiel aspect. Thiel is a multi-billionaire investor/entrepreneur who, along with friends, was outted as gay by Gawker media 10 years previous, and so funded Hulk Hogans lawsuit with Gawker over sharing his foray into amateur porn. Of course, most sane people don't like third-party litigation when it comes to two already-wealthy people... But in this case it's hard not to feel for the billionaire who came to the aid of his millionaire friend. Oddly enough.
Shot in foot #2 (and I'm going to hurry this along, as the movie does -- The story is really all about Hulk-Thiel): The Las Vegas Review is being bought by a mysterious company.... And the working journalists are concerned the buyer will silence them. They do some digging, expose the owner of the paper... and that's that. I also work at a corporate news outlet.... What's your point? I don't think there is one. Who but a rich man would own a newspaper? If anything this proves that those particular journalists were NOT silenced by their owner, at least in that instance....
Shot in foot #3: Trump fear mongering. We all know Trump disdains the free press. It's not his own original idea you know!
Some ominous words and a few famous quotes later, and it's finally over.
I laughed, I cried, and I learned nothing.
Such a noble idea -- The free press is being bought out and silenced. I'm sure it's true. But this movie fails to make the case.
Someone should take another shot at this subject.
The law should help us. Now when it helps "them" it's a bad law. And both sides are equally unpleasant in their stride to introduce the totalitarian state based on arbitrary decisions "for freedom" replacing the rule of law.
In this twisted sprint towards the total state, the scandal rags are actually "doing things differently." Anyway, the documentary is dishonest. And is trying to pull in any conspiracy in their favor.
Contact me with Questions, Comments or Suggestions ryitfork @ bitmail.ch
In this twisted sprint towards the total state, the scandal rags are actually "doing things differently." Anyway, the documentary is dishonest. And is trying to pull in any conspiracy in their favor.
Contact me with Questions, Comments or Suggestions ryitfork @ bitmail.ch
¿Sabías que…?
- ConexionesReferenced in Film Junk Podcast: Episode 619: Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Tiempo de ejecución
- 1h 35min(95 min)
- Color
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta