Why should the Gawker network do "actual journalism" if that need's already met by major outlets? Granted, there are listicle happy properties (Lifehacker), bu

Why should the Gawker network do "actual journalism" if that need's already met by major outlets? Granted, there are listicle happy properties (Lifehacker), but Gawker et al. filled a void with it's meta-criticism of news. It's not rare for Gawker to cover topics that are too risky for major outlets. Take for example the sports property, deadspin. I read deadspin and the deadspin writers broach newsworthy topics that would get an ESPN writer not only "banned from the clubhouse" but suspended by HQ in order to appease the team/league. Deadspin provides signal that major outlets would otherwise avoid or over-cook. Not to over-shill for Gawker, but the commenters are pretty educated and won't let the authors off the hook if the author leaves holes in their argument. I submit that your poop should flow further down the news hill to sites like Vice.com where NYT super-journos call them out for looking at poop[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLmkec_4Rfo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLmkec_4Rfo