The Death of the Rude Press(newrepublic.com)
newrepublic.com
The Death of the Rude Press
https://newrepublic.com/article/155627/death-rude-press-deadspin-splinter-blogs
56 comments
Gawker was trash, but I wouldn't lump all of the "rude press" in with them. There's value in low-budget "answer to no one" journalism, specifically in that the wealthy who often control the bigger outlets and their friends can be taken to task.
I'm using "Gawker network" and "rude press" mostly synonymously here. There may be outlets who act differently.
In general, though, I'm very skeptical of the idea that journalistic rudeness, snark, condescension, and contempt is a good way to address issues, even if the issues may be real and deserving of exposure.
In general, though, I'm very skeptical of the idea that journalistic rudeness, snark, condescension, and contempt is a good way to address issues, even if the issues may be real and deserving of exposure.
I actually think we agree. When I think of positive "rude press", I think of local papers that, amidst some goofy headlines, do real local reporting that informs the readership. The "good" rude press imo isn't rude just to be rude, but is rude in the sense that those who are privileged aren't shown deference. The Village Voice is a good example.
The trash rude press are the tabloids and muckrakers who I think most would agree we'd be better off without.
The trash rude press are the tabloids and muckrakers who I think most would agree we'd be better off without.
On what basis can you compare a writer/editor from GMG with the private equity group that purchased his employer?
Are you saying that we can't trust his motives and competence, because he was fired?
Are you saying that we can't trust his motives and competence, because he was fired?
I'm speaking about all former and current Gawker network writers, which this author is included in.
There’s an assumption underneath the Gawkersphere snark (that this piece is a part of) that the correctness of one particular far left political worldview is unassailably true. This assumption undermines the entire article, because it leaves no room for dissent.
Fortunately, most non partisans recognize the complexity of the world reaches far beyond the limits of what one political viewpoint is able to encapsulate.
Fortunately, most non partisans recognize the complexity of the world reaches far beyond the limits of what one political viewpoint is able to encapsulate.
I don’t know about ideology. I know Gawker alerted Torontonians to the fact that their mayor was off his gourd on drugs, hanging out at a crack-house. That seems like a public service to me.
And "rude" an is euphemism for a website that was publishing lists of gay people to out them.
Only gay people who hold views they disagree with, to be clear. Sexual orientation outing is just one of the many weapons available in their arsenal for use against the "up". If they were to out someone they agree with, it would be punching down, and that's a no-no.
Gawker is not "far left".
What they probably meant instead was "modern US 'woke' culture". The term "far-left" has become overloaded in the past decade.
Effectively nobody in the US is "far left".
Kshama Sawant was just elected to her third term on the Seattle City Council. Here is the Wikipedia section about her economic policy:
> Sawant has advocated the nationalization of large Washington State corporations such as Boeing, Microsoft, and Amazon[62] and expressed a desire to see privately owned housing in "Millionaire's Row" in the Capitol Hill neighborhood turned into publicly owned shared housing complex saying, "When things are exquisitely beautiful and rare, they shouldn't be privately owned."[63] During an election victory rally for her City Council campaign, Sawant criticized Boeing for saying it would move jobs out of state if it could not get wage concessions and tax breaks. She called this "economic terrorism" and said in several speeches that if Boeing moved jobs out of state, the workers should take over Boeing facilities and bring them into public ownership. She has said they could be converted into multiple uses, such as production for mass transit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshama_Sawant#Economic_policie...
> Sawant has advocated the nationalization of large Washington State corporations such as Boeing, Microsoft, and Amazon[62] and expressed a desire to see privately owned housing in "Millionaire's Row" in the Capitol Hill neighborhood turned into publicly owned shared housing complex saying, "When things are exquisitely beautiful and rare, they shouldn't be privately owned."[63] During an election victory rally for her City Council campaign, Sawant criticized Boeing for saying it would move jobs out of state if it could not get wage concessions and tax breaks. She called this "economic terrorism" and said in several speeches that if Boeing moved jobs out of state, the workers should take over Boeing facilities and bring them into public ownership. She has said they could be converted into multiple uses, such as production for mass transit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshama_Sawant#Economic_policie...
Those nationalisations are like things that Labour governments in the UK actually did in the '40s through '70s. At the leftmost edge of the mainstream, sure, but hardly far left.
How many of those nationalizations involved the workers "taking over the factories"?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/seattle-councilwoman-urge...
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/seattle-councilwoman-urge...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/7-things-to...
In particular, look at two aspects of the animation for "Political Polarization of the American Public, 1994-2014": First, notice that the line for Median Democrat moves only to the left. Second, put your pointer or your finger over where the line for Median Democrat is in 1994 and compare that to where it ends up in 2014. Then do the same for Median Republican.
edit: Here's the version of it that goes to 1994-2017 -- you can clearly see what happens from 2015 to 2017 as well:
https://www.people-press.org/interactives/political-polariza...
In particular, look at two aspects of the animation for "Political Polarization of the American Public, 1994-2014": First, notice that the line for Median Democrat moves only to the left. Second, put your pointer or your finger over where the line for Median Democrat is in 1994 and compare that to where it ends up in 2014. Then do the same for Median Republican.
edit: Here's the version of it that goes to 1994-2017 -- you can clearly see what happens from 2015 to 2017 as well:
https://www.people-press.org/interactives/political-polariza...
Becoming more "consistently liberal" is hardly the same as being far-left. Hell, even moving more to the left isn't necessarily, depending on where one starts from, and the early 90s are not exactly known to be a left-wing era in the US: the liberal President of the time won on a campaign on a promise of cutting down welfare - “Two years and you’re off”; you can move quite a bit from that without becoming a socialist.
> Becoming more "consistently liberal" is hardly the same as being far-left.
Becoming more "consistently liberal" and less "mixed" is essentially the definition of moving to the left.
> Hell, even moving more to the left isn't necessarily, depending on where one starts from, and the early 90s are not exactly known to be a left-wing era in the US
As opposed to what preceded that, i.e. Bush/Reagan?
Arguing that Democrats aren't far to the left of where they were 25 years ago because at that time they were much closer to the center than where they are now is just conceding the point by rephrasing it.
Becoming more "consistently liberal" and less "mixed" is essentially the definition of moving to the left.
> Hell, even moving more to the left isn't necessarily, depending on where one starts from, and the early 90s are not exactly known to be a left-wing era in the US
As opposed to what preceded that, i.e. Bush/Reagan?
Arguing that Democrats aren't far to the left of where they were 25 years ago because at that time they were much closer to the center than where they are now is just conceding the point by rephrasing it.
Eh, sorry, I guess we're using different definitions here. I'm not saying "Democrats aren't far to the left of where they were 25 years ago" (nor is twic saying that, I suspect).
"Far-left", at least everywhere I've seen the term used, is not relative to a previous position the same population held, but relative to the overall political spectrum. It's essentially "in the subset farthest to the left one can possibly be".
Who exactly fits into the far-left is arguable, but generally abolition of large-scale private property tends to be a requisite.
"Far-left", at least everywhere I've seen the term used, is not relative to a previous position the same population held, but relative to the overall political spectrum. It's essentially "in the subset farthest to the left one can possibly be".
Who exactly fits into the far-left is arguable, but generally abolition of large-scale private property tends to be a requisite.
If nobody is far-left unless they're Karl Marx and nobody is far-right unless they're Adolf Hitler then in practice nobody is going to be either of those things unless they're ignorant or mentally ill, because they've both been attempted with results so stark that no sane person could want to repeat them.
The extremes also expose the flaws of that spectrum to begin with, because your average anarcho-capitalist would no sooner want to live under Hitler than Stalin. But we've somehow managed to categorize as "far right" both the proposition that no one, including the government, should ever use force to coerce anyone to do anything, and simultaneously the proposition that the government should use lethal force to stamp out homosexuality and racial impurity and wrongthink. And on the other side, that far-left at the same time means both granting equal access to power and resources to everyone and granting total economic authority to an all-powerful central government. And that the government should use lethal force to stamp out wrongthink. In that sense far-anything is just a useless general-purpose pejorative, so if it's going to mean anything then it isn't very useful for it to mean that.
So I tend to think a more useful meaning is something like the category exemplified by AOC as compared to the category exemplified by Bill Clinton.
The extremes also expose the flaws of that spectrum to begin with, because your average anarcho-capitalist would no sooner want to live under Hitler than Stalin. But we've somehow managed to categorize as "far right" both the proposition that no one, including the government, should ever use force to coerce anyone to do anything, and simultaneously the proposition that the government should use lethal force to stamp out homosexuality and racial impurity and wrongthink. And on the other side, that far-left at the same time means both granting equal access to power and resources to everyone and granting total economic authority to an all-powerful central government. And that the government should use lethal force to stamp out wrongthink. In that sense far-anything is just a useless general-purpose pejorative, so if it's going to mean anything then it isn't very useful for it to mean that.
So I tend to think a more useful meaning is something like the category exemplified by AOC as compared to the category exemplified by Bill Clinton.
Very well put. But in your last paragraph, "useful" probably means "useful for discussing the US. That probably wouldn't classify as "far left" for most of Europe.
And that's fine, because if we're discussing US politics, then Europe's definition of far left is rather irrelevant.
And that's fine, because if we're discussing US politics, then Europe's definition of far left is rather irrelevant.
Yes, of course. If you put Bill Clinton in Europe he's a member of a right-wing political party. If you put him in the US he's a Democrat who can carry Pennsylvania and Ohio. If you put him in Saudi Arabia he's a cartoonish left-wing extremist.
It doesn't mean anything to talk about positions or shifts over time without some kind of a baseline.
It doesn't mean anything to talk about positions or shifts over time without some kind of a baseline.
https://www.victimsofcommunism.org/2019-annual-poll
> Communism is viewed favorably by more than one-in-three Millennials (36%), up 8 points from 2018.
> About one-in-five Millennials (22%) believe that “society would be better if all private property was abolished,” compared to 1% of the Silent Generation.
Also, far left is a relative term.
> Communism is viewed favorably by more than one-in-three Millennials (36%), up 8 points from 2018.
> About one-in-five Millennials (22%) believe that “society would be better if all private property was abolished,” compared to 1% of the Silent Generation.
Also, far left is a relative term.
Talk to anyone who claims to support 'communism' and you get liberalism. In the majority of cases where people tell me they self identify as communists it just means "super extra not republican" instead of any concrete ideology. I hear a lot about minorities, I don't hear much about the abolishment of private property.
LGBT rights are orthogonal to communism, you can have a state that murders anyone who is gay and one that enforces universal gender reassignment and both could be equally communist. Nationalizing the electricity grid and ISPs isn't orthogonal, but the 'far leftists' in the US either don't mention it at all, or mention it so far in their list of demands there will be no political capital left for it even if world revolution happened tomorrow.
LGBT rights are orthogonal to communism, you can have a state that murders anyone who is gay and one that enforces universal gender reassignment and both could be equally communist. Nationalizing the electricity grid and ISPs isn't orthogonal, but the 'far leftists' in the US either don't mention it at all, or mention it so far in their list of demands there will be no political capital left for it even if world revolution happened tomorrow.
Even if that’s true, it says something horrific about our society that it’s socially acceptable to wear that label: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/11/20/nicolae-one-hu.... It’s like self-identifying as a Nazi because you’re “super extra not Democrat.”
And I question whether your premise is true. About 22% of millennials surveyed stated that “it would be better if all private property was abolished.” https://www.victimsofcommunism.org/2019-annual-poll
And I question whether your premise is true. About 22% of millennials surveyed stated that “it would be better if all private property was abolished.” https://www.victimsofcommunism.org/2019-annual-poll
More people died when communism collapsed in Russia than from WWII [0]. It seems communism kills much fewer people prematurely than does capitalism for any given society it has been tried in. I can only imagine the utopia it would be when tried in a country that isn't a third world hell hole.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia
That only follows if you factor out the negative effect of the government collapsing, which tends to impair prosperity indicators regardless of how bad the government previously was. (E.g. Iraq or Syria.)
Right - i believe "communist" is mostly a fashion statement among US millennials. Stick a hammer and sickle emoji in your Twitter name and retweet AOC memes, bam, now you're a communist.
Seems more like you are expecting too much from normal people who are just trying to get by in life. Supporting communism doesn't mean you are going to join the local communist party and actively try to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. That is orthogonal and depends on how politically active a person is.
What supporting communism means is when a communist shows up on the ballot box, you are likely to vote for them. That in itself is a huge shift from the older generations.
What supporting communism means is when a communist shows up on the ballot box, you are likely to vote for them. That in itself is a huge shift from the older generations.
Sure, but even voting for a communist candidate doesn't mean you're a communist or even far-left.
Okay, then 90% of Americans aren't moderate, centrist, neoliberal, socialist, socdem, demsoc, neonazi, fascist, far right, far left, etc.
This is just trying to spin a particular narrative out of an existing and larger trend where information (and media in particular) is becoming less and less valuable to individuals.
The world is saturated with hot takes, and I don't need your particular ad-laden website to enjoy them, even if you have serious but rude journalists. Ask every other journalist in every part of the world how the industry is doing and you'll understand this isn't specific to the "rude press".
The world is saturated with hot takes, and I don't need your particular ad-laden website to enjoy them, even if you have serious but rude journalists. Ask every other journalist in every part of the world how the industry is doing and you'll understand this isn't specific to the "rude press".
> It is an attitude. The defining quality of rude media is skepticism about power, and a refusal to respect the niceties that power depends on to disguise itself and maintain its dominance. It’s often hard for me to imagine that anyone can grow up in this era and not end up doubting the competence and motives of nearly everyone in charge of nearly every American institution.
It’s weird to me that people are so unskeptical about assertions that things are somehow completely dysfunctional in one of the freest and most prosperous countries in the world.
Our institutions are not only the product of a vigorous democratic process, but we can compare the results to the institutions of other vigorous democracies. If we look to our friendly neighbor to the north, we can see that in broad strokes, and even a lot of detailed strokes, they’ve organized their society very similarly to ours. We can look across the pond to the U.K. or Australia and see the same thing. To me, what warrants skepticism isn’t our institutions, it’s those impugning the “competence and motives” of those leading them.
It’s weird to me that people are so unskeptical about assertions that things are somehow completely dysfunctional in one of the freest and most prosperous countries in the world.
Our institutions are not only the product of a vigorous democratic process, but we can compare the results to the institutions of other vigorous democracies. If we look to our friendly neighbor to the north, we can see that in broad strokes, and even a lot of detailed strokes, they’ve organized their society very similarly to ours. We can look across the pond to the U.K. or Australia and see the same thing. To me, what warrants skepticism isn’t our institutions, it’s those impugning the “competence and motives” of those leading them.
> It’s weird to me that people are so unskeptical about assertions that things are somehow completely dysfunctional in one of the freest and most prosperous countries in the world.
As someone who hails from Asia like you and has seen proper dysfunctional systems, I agree completely.
But don't events of the past 3-4 years give you any pause? I've recently developed a habit of reading foxnews front page, and there's a clear trend of painting Mexicans and brown people in general as troublemakers. You and I will agree that the system isn't really corrupt, but I think you and I will also agree insofar as it's all ruled by money, news will be given out in the manner in which it gets them the most money: and unfortunately that is going to be by producing more outrage and by appealing to our laziness and our worst instincts. Doesn't that give you any worry?
As someone who hails from Asia like you and has seen proper dysfunctional systems, I agree completely.
But don't events of the past 3-4 years give you any pause? I've recently developed a habit of reading foxnews front page, and there's a clear trend of painting Mexicans and brown people in general as troublemakers. You and I will agree that the system isn't really corrupt, but I think you and I will also agree insofar as it's all ruled by money, news will be given out in the manner in which it gets them the most money: and unfortunately that is going to be by producing more outrage and by appealing to our laziness and our worst instincts. Doesn't that give you any worry?
> It’s weird to me that people are so unskeptical about assertions that things are somehow completely dysfunctional in one of the freest and most prosperous countries in the world.
It should be no surprise, then, that many of those who are skeptical about American institutions are also skeptical about the states being one of the freest and most prosperous countries in the world.
It should be no surprise, then, that many of those who are skeptical about American institutions are also skeptical about the states being one of the freest and most prosperous countries in the world.
It’s not just rudeness, it’s the belief that a media publications sees itself as immune to societal norms and values. Gawker truly believed that it could print whatever it wanted to, and be immune to responsibility, because it believed it was shielded by free press laws. It was nothing more than an awful tabloid. Good riddance.
Calling Gawker "rude" is at the same level as calling Baghdadi an "Austere Religious Scholar"
Insanely obvious counterexample: Barstool Sports is growing faster than ever in the exact category that deadspin failed to maintain their traction in.
Barstool is referenced more than once in the piece, but not directly by name. Deadspin did not fail, it was murdered.
And I know you aren't saying it directly, but this really shouldn't be about The Left and The Right. The problem is about punching up versus punching down.
And I know you aren't saying it directly, but this really shouldn't be about The Left and The Right. The problem is about punching up versus punching down.
Those are largely one and the same in the current culture, though. "Progressive rude journalists" like Gawker's use "punching up" and "we're rude only to those who deserve it" as an excuse and shield for shitty epistemology, and as a justification for refusing civil engagement with those they disagree with. It's who they deem to be "up", and their judgment is dictated by their personal and political biases.
"Punching up" in general is a concept unique to modern progressive philosophy, as well. I don't believe that's a concept for the right. I understand the thought behind it, but I think it's a very dangerous and slippery slope.
The fuzzy "up" concept for the modern left is kind of the equivalent of the fuzzy "degenerate" concept for the modern right. They're just labels you use to tar people you disagree with or dislike, and then you use the label as shorthand to merit any kind of judgmental or malicious behavior towards that group.
Also, even when one does agree with their "upness" assessment, it doesn't necessarily have any relation to the nature or deservedness of the criticism. I agree billionaires are powerful, but you can still write hit pieces against billionaires which misrepresent their words and positions, or imply hidden intentions behind their words or actions with no credible evidence.
"Punching up" in general is a concept unique to modern progressive philosophy, as well. I don't believe that's a concept for the right. I understand the thought behind it, but I think it's a very dangerous and slippery slope.
The fuzzy "up" concept for the modern left is kind of the equivalent of the fuzzy "degenerate" concept for the modern right. They're just labels you use to tar people you disagree with or dislike, and then you use the label as shorthand to merit any kind of judgmental or malicious behavior towards that group.
Also, even when one does agree with their "upness" assessment, it doesn't necessarily have any relation to the nature or deservedness of the criticism. I agree billionaires are powerful, but you can still write hit pieces against billionaires which misrepresent their words and positions, or imply hidden intentions behind their words or actions with no credible evidence.
luckydata(1)
> Barstool is referenced more than once in the piece
Yes, it's said to be part of the "anti-PC press": The anti-P.C. press certainly delights in titillating its audience, but it always, unfailingly, endorses a completely servile relationship to authority.
As you say, the actual point of the article isn't even about rudeness, it's about standing up to power, or not.
Yes, it's said to be part of the "anti-PC press": The anti-P.C. press certainly delights in titillating its audience, but it always, unfailingly, endorses a completely servile relationship to authority.
As you say, the actual point of the article isn't even about rudeness, it's about standing up to power, or not.
It's not even about standing up to power, it's about standing up to author's ideological enemies.
We're left with the legacy of pop-SJW as a result of the blossoming of "rude media" in the 00s and early teens. Jezebel's entire schtick was to say the most inflammatory stuff they could think of and dress it up in pop-crit theory clothing. The intellectual legacy of Denton's family of muck-raking websites isn't truth-to-power journalism, it's twitter pile-ons over prom dresses.
> It was rude, by and large, to people who deserved it
Almost everyone can justify to themselves and people like them why someone else deserves to be treated rudely. It's a lot harder to avoid being rude, even to people you disagree with. It's also better for society to disagree in other ways.
Almost everyone can justify to themselves and people like them why someone else deserves to be treated rudely. It's a lot harder to avoid being rude, even to people you disagree with. It's also better for society to disagree in other ways.
There is market for rudeness. But you still have to have worthwhile context.
There is a market for a lot of things that are not good for us as individuals or society at large. I would suggest people not feed that market. But, that's just my 2 cents.
It mentions a number of "Rude" news sources, but fails to mention Fox News, which I think also qualifies. Rupert Murdoch started with Australian and British papers, and I think that's an important detail. Adversarial press was more of a British thing than an American one, or at least developed there earlier.
Bootlickers and the civility police didn't kill the 'Rude Press'. Overpopulation killed the Rude Press.
A lot of 'normal' media sources rushed left to be the anti-Fox. It's become so crowded that the field has started to thin.
A lot of 'normal' media sources rushed left to be the anti-Fox. It's become so crowded that the field has started to thin.
Gawker were told to shut up and dribble, not be less rude. Heaven forbid the owners want to make a profit instead of bland social justice content.
If gawker were profitable enough, no one would have ever interfered with the editorial process.
If gawker were profitable enough, no one would have ever interfered with the editorial process.
“It was rude, by and large, to people who deserved it: amoral and venal team owners, predatory sports media personalities, bandwagon Warriors fans. “
Being rude to people that deserve it is the same sort of justification used for punching Nazis. It’s easy (and a good idea)when they are wearing a Swastika, but it’s actually not so easy to discern most of the time. And when you are a media outlet, you peddle in most of the time scenarios resulting in nonstop clickbait.
Good riddance.
Being rude to people that deserve it is the same sort of justification used for punching Nazis. It’s easy (and a good idea)when they are wearing a Swastika, but it’s actually not so easy to discern most of the time. And when you are a media outlet, you peddle in most of the time scenarios resulting in nonstop clickbait.
Good riddance.
> Bootlickers and the civility police won. [...] And even worse things have survived. [...] It is the anti-P.C. media, where the audience’s vicarious thrill comes not from watching scrappy underdogs heckle their supposed betters, but from watching guys sitting comfortably atop social hierarchies belittle and dominate their lessers. [...] a position of maximum privilege is male, and young, and probably has some money to throw around
The rude media has died because the rude media is boring. You can only blame déclassé white men for the worlds problems so many times before everyone tunes out. What was new in the 1960s is not new, interesting or even right 50 years later.
OP should probably read some of that anti-pc media, like Mencius Moldbug or RMS. A few people who have something interesting to say and have been crucified for it by OP and OP's friends. To quote Moldbug (2013) [0]:
> The logic of the witch hunter is simple. [...] The first requirement is to invert the reality of power. Power at its most basic level is the power to harm or destroy other human beings. The obvious reality is that witch hunters gang up and destroy witches. Whereas witches are never, ever seen to gang up and destroy witch hunters. [...] Obviously, if the witches had any power whatsoever, they wouldn’t waste their time gallivanting around on broomsticks, fellating Satan and cursing cows with sour milk. They’re getting burned right and left, for Christ’s sake! Priorities! No, they’d turn the tables and lay some serious voodoo on the witch-hunters. In a country where anyone who speaks out against the witches is soon found dangling by his heels from an oak at midnight with his head shrunk to the size of a baseball, we won’t see a lot of witch-hunting and we know there’s a serious witch problem. In a country where witch-hunting is a stable and lucrative career, and also an amateur pastime enjoyed by millions of hobbyists on the weekend, we know there are no real witches worth a damn.
[0] https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2013/09/technology-...
The rude media has died because the rude media is boring. You can only blame déclassé white men for the worlds problems so many times before everyone tunes out. What was new in the 1960s is not new, interesting or even right 50 years later.
OP should probably read some of that anti-pc media, like Mencius Moldbug or RMS. A few people who have something interesting to say and have been crucified for it by OP and OP's friends. To quote Moldbug (2013) [0]:
> The logic of the witch hunter is simple. [...] The first requirement is to invert the reality of power. Power at its most basic level is the power to harm or destroy other human beings. The obvious reality is that witch hunters gang up and destroy witches. Whereas witches are never, ever seen to gang up and destroy witch hunters. [...] Obviously, if the witches had any power whatsoever, they wouldn’t waste their time gallivanting around on broomsticks, fellating Satan and cursing cows with sour milk. They’re getting burned right and left, for Christ’s sake! Priorities! No, they’d turn the tables and lay some serious voodoo on the witch-hunters. In a country where anyone who speaks out against the witches is soon found dangling by his heels from an oak at midnight with his head shrunk to the size of a baseball, we won’t see a lot of witch-hunting and we know there’s a serious witch problem. In a country where witch-hunting is a stable and lucrative career, and also an amateur pastime enjoyed by millions of hobbyists on the weekend, we know there are no real witches worth a damn.
[0] https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2013/09/technology-...
[deleted]
Yes. Especially including Gawker network writers, like the author himself. What he sees as "rudeness in the name of speaking truth to power", millions of others see as low-rate tabloid-esque journalists injecting biased, poorly-formed, condescending and contemptuous opinions into articles with the direct intent of maliciously stirring outrage in an unwarranted and sensationalistic manner.
The death of the Gawker / "rude" press was a long time coming.