2 ms·
Definitely agree that Jezebel and many other publications in general don't give provide enough perspective of feminism and LGBT issues from PoC (for what its wo
by lotso 10y ago
Definitely agree that Jezebel and many other publications in general don't give provide enough perspective of feminism and LGBT issues from PoC (for what its worth, I'm a PoC), but I disagree with the fact that Gawker does not provide some legitimate journalism. Does Gawker have an issue here? Yes. Does Gawker produce a bunch of drivel around issues that are probably trivial in the grand scheme of things? Yes, but I think you could apply the same critique to almost every major liberal news publication. The difference for me is that Gawker has reach and is willing to take on very powerful people (for better or for worse), unlike other publications.
- emblem21 10y agoI'll meet you halfway and agree on the importance on taking on the powerful. But I can't lionize Gawker for doing that. I can only criticize them for lowering the bar on what taking on the powerful means. Revealing a VC is gay isn't taking on the powerful. Revealing the low-commitment racism of a wrestling has-been isn't taking on the powerful. This is pandering to low information and low attention audiences to secure a buck with TMZ-style gossip... and then dressing it up like you're doing God's work because, somehow, everyone involved believes they are on the right side of history™. If you want to see an example of journalists taking on power, ask yourself this: When is the last time a central bank called out Gawker? If you want to see an example of data-driven journalism (ignore the election year antics) that actually takes on the powerful, give Zerohedge a try. At least they make the effort to back up their occasionally ridiculous speculation with hard data.