Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press

For the most part, this is an engaging documentary. But despite its marketing, "Nobody Speak" isn't really about the Bollea v. Gawker case. Sure, the trial gets plenty of screen time (in all its salacious and uncomfortable glory) but this is really about behind-the-scenes funding; the billionaire with a grudge against Gawker, the baron who buys out the Las Vegas newspaper to suppress unfavorable reporting. These are moneyed villains that beg to be reviled. Even His Trumpness is involved in a final segment that feels wholly supplemental) after waging a war on "Fake News".

The movie loses steam when it moves away from Peter Thiel and Gawker (its strongest segment) to broaden the support of the Fourth Estate. But on the whole, it's not bad.

6/10

Although fairly interesting, it's very muddled and unfocused, and very biased. Lots of interviews with the press-side, hearing their opinions, but nothing but others footage from anyone else making for a very one sided argument. No matter who is right or wrong, it makes for a very biased film.

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.

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.

This was a well-produced and thoughtful piece that certainly caught my eye as I scrolled through Netflix. As a guy who follows journalism fairly close (as a hobby, not an occupation), I was certainly intrigued.

There were three problems I saw with the movie.

First, it was very one-sided. Sheldon Adelson, a Republican, is obviously a horrible, maniacal billionaire whose only reason to purchase a newspaper is to hide any negative press about himself. Nevermind all the Democrat billionaires who buy newspapers-Buffett, Bezos, John Henry. I'm sure their intentions are 100% pure and noble and they never try to use their newspaper to cover up stories? Mmhmm. Sure.

Second, it was just an attack on one person. I'm not a Trump supporter. I did not vote for him and will never vote for him. But the disingenuousness behind the documentary was insulting. We can talk about the effect the Hogan/Bollea case has on journalism without having to go the anti-Trump route. (Also note, they say nothing about Obama trying journalists under the Espionage Act).

But the bigger point to all this is that journalists actually think they are above any criticism. ANY story they come up with is newsworthy, important, and completely above reproach. And to criticize them is to slap the face of the most important arm of civil society. To question them is to question the fabric of society-which is obviously the journalists.

We can't question them, call them to the carpet for shady, unethical, or inappropriate uses of their positions, stories, or actions. And since the general public's faith in journalism is waning (many will contend it's all but gone), they have to pat themselves on the back.

Nobody is going to bat for the journalists anymore. And perhaps that's the bigger element for them: they see their impact on society decreasing, so they need pieces like this.

I found this to be an intriguing, yet troubling film.