[Phantom Hoover]

People still take the guardian seriously in 2015?

I mean, a decent number? They're a bit full of themselves at times but they're probably the most credible of the main UK newspapers by a wide margin. The rest mostly break down into morally bankrupt tabloids, godawful Tory broadsheets and Buzzfeed the Independent.

[Luis Dias]

The_E, I'm talking about empirical statements of truth. Not opinions. His opinions are generally flamboyant and confrontational, spicy. IOW, assholeish. The best I can say about those is, at least he doesn't hide it.

I mean, a decent number? They're a bit full of themselves at times but they're probably the most credible of the main UK newspapers by a wide margin. The rest mostly break down into morally bankrupt tabloids, godawful Tory broadsheets and Buzzfeed the Independent.

Well, "full of themselves" could be seen as "godawful Labor broadsheets" material, but I see your point. Well, nothing's perfect. We have to take the poison with the goods I guess.

[MP-Ryan]

I shall paraphrase what I said on Twitter:

Gawker is, always has been, and always will be, trash.

[Flipside]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gawker

Noun   1.   gawker - a spectator who stares stupidly without intelligent awareness

This is what I always associated the word 'gawker' with...

[Luis Dias]

It might be intentional, given what is written in this link.... Gawker is starting to implode. Max Read and Tommy Craggs are quitting Gawker.

https://archive.is/vMAYn

[Mongoose]

I'm really mostly left wondering if I should have known what Gawker was before this whole thing came up.

[Thisisaverylongusername]

I'm really mostly left wondering if I should have known what Gawker was before this whole thing came up.

I didn't know about it either. All the better that I didn't.

[Bobboau]

they are an online tabloid that has been systematically lowering discourse online for the last 5 years.

so, yeah, you should count it as a badge of honor that you don't know who they are.

[karajorma]

It might be intentional, given what is written in this link.... Gawker is starting to implode. Max Read and Tommy Craggs are quitting Gawker.

https://archive.is/vMAYn

So if I'm reading that correctly (and I only did a quick skim) they are quitting because they believe that even though they had done something that was a complete dick move, and might even actually be a crime (complicity in blackmail), the management had no right to pull the story.

[Bobboau]

they just had a huge unionization thing happen. this might be related to that.

[Bobboau]

[Black_Yoshi1230]

they are an online tabloid that has been systematically lowering discourse online for the last 5 years.

so, yeah, you should count it as a badge of honor that you don't know who they are.

Crap, I tend to read stuff from Deadspin and io9 while having some occasional bouts in Gizmodo and Jalopnik (all of which, unfortunately, are under the Gawker Media banner). Does that make me a horrible person?

[General Battuta]

Not really. It's pretty hard to be on the internet without contributing to morally questionable corporate practices. Just clicking on links gives someone money.

[Luis Dias]

Because probably (and I might be wrong here) Cathy Young is a lot more amenable than other journalists with ... ahhh.... greekish names, I'll link to this article which shares a lot of wrongness that Gawker is guilty of. It's a whole culture. Trigger warning: it's an editorial piece against certain behaviors that some of you might not have a problem with.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/19/gawker__the_lefts_selective_outrage_127443.html

[Bobboau]

Crap, I tend to read stuff from Deadspin and io9 while having some occasional bouts in Gizmodo and Jalopnik (all of which, unfortunately, are under the Gawker Media banner). Does that make me a horrible person?

yes you are bad and you should feel bad, here is a whip so you may now flagellate yourself

[NGTM-1R]

Because probably (and I might be wrong here) Cathy Young is a lot more amenable than other journalists with ... ahhh.... greekish names, I'll link to this article which shares a lot of wrongness that Gawker is guilty of. It's a whole culture. Trigger warning: it's an editorial piece against certain behaviors that some of you might not have a problem with.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/19/gawker__the_lefts_selective_outrage_127443.html

Frankly you seem to think you're making some kind of awesome point here, as does the author of this piece, but you're both being so selective in your examples as to be laughable. Acting like Gawker hasn't always pissed on everyone on both sides is great, I suppose, if you're really upset by the ideas behind social justice and eager to predict its end.

It's completely untrue, as well.

[Luis Dias]

I wasn't making any point, but I did link to a piece that makes one. I find your allusion to selectivity / anedoctalness of the article a solid comment.

I also do think that the larger "Social Justice" ideas are not going to "end" anytime soon, they have been around for hundreds of years, it's not going to be Gawker's demise that is going to kill it. My only gripe with your comment is your assessment that it attacked "both sides". I do wonder at this, because it's absolutely novel to me. Gawker *is* a left-wing publication, regardless of how bad in taste it is (was).