• by Melynda Fuller , February 1, 2018

Men’s-rights advocate and Pizzagate provocateur Mike Cernovich is reported to be another bider in line to acquire the Gawker.com domain and its trove of 200,000 plus articles.

Vanity Fair reports the righ t-wing personality offered $500,000 in cash to acquire the once-powerful website, claiming he will use it to further his journalistic ambitions. 

The leaked documents were filed on January 9 and include a link to a password-protected presentation outlining Cernovich’s media strategy, which follows this motto: Conflict is attention.

“For the past 18 months, I have assembled a video and audio crew who are talented at creating viral content,” Cernovich wrote in a letter to Gawker’s bankruptcy administrator William Holden. He stated that he’s been working with independent journalists, and the name recognition of the site and its trove of social-media followers would allow him to continue his work as a journalist.

One hitch: The readers who rabidly followed the reporting at Gawker also ridiculed figures like Cernivich. In fact, like Peter Thiel, who also made a bid for the site, Cernovich was a target of the site. He once challenged Gawker editor Sam Biddle to a boxing match after Biddle covered Gamergate.  

The day after he submitted his proposal to buy Gawker, Cernovich mocked the failed Kickstarter campaign launched by former Gawker editors trying to raise funds to buy it back online. “Gawker bloggers couldn’t raise more than my crowd fund for a film, that’s why they hate me . . . they are nobody losers.”

What do these bitter men want with a site they’ve publically blasted in the past? It can’t go far beyond revenge, making it all the more alarming the site was shuttered after a Thiel-backed lawsuit.

True, money has always swayed the path of journalism. The increasing polarization of political parties in the U.S. and arguments about what constitutes trustworthy news, suggests revenge takedowns, like Gawker, will only increase. The attacks go beyond arguments about fake news and a free press. Rather, what’s at stake is the ability for those with diverse viewpoints to have a seat at the table.

Ironically, Cernovich cited just this sentiment to Vanity Fair’s Hive: “Gawker started out speaking the truth to power, and then it became about bullying anyone who didn’t conform to their social-justice orthodoxy. They wanted to inflict pain on people with no platform simply for the sake of inflicting pain.”

Just who is losing the platform here?