5 ms·
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
by 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 agoI'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 agoI 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.