I'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

I'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.