6 ms·

The Death of the Rude Press

46 points by smacktoward 7y ago

helen___keller 7y ago
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".
meowface 7y ago
>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 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.
- dvanduzer 7y ago
  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?
  - meowface 7y ago
    I'm speaking about all former and current Gawker network writers, which this author is included in.
- RankingMember 7y ago
  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.
  - meowface 7y ago
    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.
    - RankingMember 7y ago
      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.
cjf4 7y ago
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.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Gawker is not "far left".
  - twic 7y ago
    Effectively nobody in the US is "far left".
    - newen 7y ago
      https://www.victimsofcommunism.org/2019-annual-poll 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.
      - buzzkillington 7y ago
        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.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
creaghpatr 7y ago
Insanely obvious counterexample: Barstool Sports is growing faster than ever in the exact category that deadspin failed to maintain their traction in.
- dvanduzer 7y ago
  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.
  - bambax 7y ago
    > 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.
    - Hitton 7y ago
      It's not even about standing up to power, it's about standing up to author's ideological enemies.
  - meowface 7y ago
    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.
Simulacra 7y ago
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.
- ancorevard 7y ago
  Calling Gawker "rude" is at the same level as calling Baghdadi an "Austere Religious Scholar"
mfer 7y ago
> 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.
- ReptileMan 7y ago
  There is market for rudeness. But you still have to have worthwhile context.
  - mfer 7y ago
    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.
ReptileMan 7y ago
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.
oxymoran 7y ago
“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.
weeksie 7y ago
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.
buzzkillington 7y ago
> 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-communism-and-brown-scare/ https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2013/09/technology-...
rayiner 7y ago
> 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.
- pen2l 7y ago
  > 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?
- helen___keller 7y ago
  > 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.
uxp100 7y ago
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.
thedaemon 7y ago
Ok Boomer.
RickJWagner 7y ago
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.

46 points by smacktoward 7y ago

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".

meowface 7y ago

>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 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.

dvanduzer 7y ago
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?
- meowface 7y ago
  I'm speaking about all former and current Gawker network writers, which this author is included in.
RankingMember 7y ago
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.
- meowface 7y ago
  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.
  - RankingMember 7y ago
    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.

cjf4 7y ago

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.

lonelappde 7y ago
Gawker is not "far left".
- twic 7y ago
  Effectively nobody in the US is "far left".
  - newen 7y ago
    https://www.victimsofcommunism.org/2019-annual-poll 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.
    - buzzkillington 7y ago
      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.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

creaghpatr 7y ago

Insanely obvious counterexample: Barstool Sports is growing faster than ever in the exact category that deadspin failed to maintain their traction in.

dvanduzer 7y ago
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.
- bambax 7y ago
  > 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.
  - Hitton 7y ago
    It's not even about standing up to power, it's about standing up to author's ideological enemies.
- meowface 7y ago
  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.

Simulacra 7y ago

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.

ancorevard 7y ago
Calling Gawker "rude" is at the same level as calling Baghdadi an "Austere Religious Scholar"

mfer 7y ago

> 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.

ReptileMan 7y ago
There is market for rudeness. But you still have to have worthwhile context.
- mfer 7y ago
  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.

ReptileMan 7y ago

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.

oxymoran 7y ago

“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.

weeksie 7y ago

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.

buzzkillington 7y ago

> 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-communism-and-brown-scare/ https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2013/09/technology-...

rayiner 7y ago

> 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.

pen2l 7y ago
> 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?
helen___keller 7y ago
> 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.

uxp100 7y ago

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.

thedaemon 7y ago

Ok Boomer.

RickJWagner 7y ago

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.