3 ms·

>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

>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.

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.