1. Monthly archive
  2. May 2016

May 2016

Gawker, Hulk Hogan and the One Percenters’ War on News

Hulk Hogan, tool of the media-hating aristocracy? The pro wrestler is at the center of a growing uproar over media transparency and the so-called one percenters who control most of the wealth in the US. Recently it came to light that Hogan’s successful lawsuit against Gawker over his published sex tape was secretly financed by PayPal billionaire Peter Thiel. It’s the latest example of the ultra-rich secretly trying to control the flow of news and information.

Casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson has insisted he isn’t influencing news coverage of the Las Vegas (NV) Review-Journal – the newspaper he bought after years of clashes over stories. Weaponizing litigation is old news. GOP candidate Donald Trump is far from the first wealthy person to use the threat of lawsuits to try to intimidate critics. But now the super-rich are waging war against not just reporting but against any kind of transparency. Thiel has admitted to secretly bankrolling anti-Gawker lawsuits in an attempt to ruin the website because a sister publication, Valleywag, outed him as gay.

Thiel-Gawker Fight Raises Concerns About Press Freedom

The story of Gawker versus Hulk Hogan — or, perhaps more accurately, Peter Thiel — has some asking whether press freedom in the United States is in peril if a scorned billionaire can help deliver a crippling blow to a media company. But since Thiel spoke about his reasons for funding the lawsuit against Gawker, the debate surrounding the dispute has expanded to encompass ideological battles in media, technology and politics. A variety of observers, including other billionaires and figures involved in GamerGate, have entered into the fray to address themes like Thiel’s political motivations, and the wider issue of Silicon Valley power players and their involvement with the news media.

American Cable Association: FCC Should Not Rush ATSC 3.0

Small and medium-sized cable operators say the Federal Communications Commission is nowhere near ready to let broadcasters start broadcasting in the ATSC 3.0 transmission standard and needs to consider the costs to smaller operators, potentially in higher retransmission fees. In comments to the FCC on the request by commercial and noncommercial TV stations to start rolling out the service while simulcasting in the current format—ATSC 3.0 is not compatible with current TV sets—the American Cable Association said the transition is more than simply filling a switch, pointing out that most viewers are watching TV stations on an multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD, or pay-TV) rather than over the air.

"Depending on how ATSC 3.0 is implemented, the transition could have a dramatic effect on small cable operators, requiring significant new capital outlays and reducing capacity on cable systems that could have been used for other programming or for broadband Internet capacity," said ACA. ACA also suggests that broadcasters will try to pass along the costs of the ATSC 3.0 transition via retrans fees it charges MVPDs. "The dysfunctional retransmission consent marketplace gives broadcasters significant leverage in negotiations with small cable operators—leverage amplified by legacy rules governing the market. This means that, if the costs of this transition are allocated solely by 'the market,' as broadcasters suggest, it is inevitable that these burdens will fall disproportionately on small cable operators. But these are the very businesses that would be least able to absorb these costs."

Student data privacy: Moving from fear to responsible use

[Commentary] In the last two years, there has been a perfect storm on the topic of student data privacy. The role of technology within schools expanded at an unprecedented rate, general awareness of consumer data security and breaches increased, and student databases at the state or national level were established or proposed, which drew great public scrutiny and fear. This maelstrom yielded a tremendous output of legislative activity targeted at education technology companies, that was overwhelmingly focused on protecting and limiting the sharing and use of student data—in rare instances, to the point of forbidding research uses almost completely. There are signs that this wave of fear-driven response has finally crested, and that more measured conversations are occurring; conversations that prioritize the fundamental requirement for appropriate privacy and security, but with a clear focus on the invaluable role of research and analysis and the need to enable it.

Harper Reed, President Obama's Former CTO, Says Data Isn't Everything

A Q&A with Harper Reed, President Barack Obama's former Chief Technology Officer during President Obama's 2012 reelection campaign.

When asked, "Have the presidential candidates of 2016 been looking at the things you did in 2012?", Reed responded, "I am mostly afraid that we will accidentally elect a Nazi as president. You'll see that every campaign has embraced the importance of data. However, I'd like to debunk the idea that data is the most important aspect. [Donald] Trump said recently, 'Data is only data. I will enter the White House purely on character.' That was smart. Since 2012, media reports make you believe that data is the most important element in election campaigns, as though candidates could win because of their collection of data. The reason [President Barack] Obama won the election in 2012 is because he was the best candidate. It is about character; Trump is right about that. He is just the only one to say this out loud. That the media do not understand this simple fact is actually quite peculiar."

© 1994-2025 Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. All Rights Reserved.