Gawker planning to concentrate on sh*tting on American politics in 2016.

This is not exactly bad news for me: they’re unlikely to be sh*tting on behalf of candidates who I like.  Having Gawker on your side in a fight is, thankfully, counter-productive: they have no ethics, which is more important than cynics think.  Also, they bring along a quite impressive stable of enemies, most of whom would cheerfully burn down Gawker’s offices, if they thought that no jury would convict. Still, it’s kind of cheapening the process still further:

 

…I was going to do a quote, but it was all very bizzarely congratulatory over at the Times.  Doesn’t anybody at that paper understand that Gawker is one of the reasons* why print media keeps getting hit in the face?  Apparently not.

Moe Lane

PS: One funny bit of trivia: apparently the hardcore humorless feminist Gawker site Jezebel will be “become the primary voice for celebrity and pop culture coverage in the network.”  …Yeah, that’s gonna go over like a lead balloon with the site’s primary readership. Especially when the site adopts a two-tier caste system for determining when a Man Acting Badly gets yelled at, and when he doesn’t…

*Or possibly it’s a symptom. Hard to say, really.

7 thoughts on “Gawker planning to concentrate on sh*tting on American politics in 2016.”

  1. I think many of the cynical mistake unethical for *ruthless*.
    .
    Anyway, it looks like io9 is going away. Not that I ever read it, because Gawker.
    .
    I’d read Jalopnik, but don’t for the same reason. I think the promised “product recommendations” “feature” is going to harm any credibility they have.

  2. When the pond is all you know, every minnow is a whale. And the pond that is the liberal media is getting very over-fished.

    Of course, if we earn the Good End for 2016, the reaction may well be worth it to watch.

  3. Huh. I click on i09 about once a day, since fairly often there’s an article or link worth looking at. The annoying articles are usually flagged in the headline, anything having to do with weather or references to the sex or race of cast members in something is easily avoided. [BTW, the “There are no Asians in The Last Avatar” articles look like they are not nearly as strong/frequent as the “Why are the gods white in Gods of Egypt?”]

  4. I will have to admit, it’ll be fun to see the conniption fits the various Gawker sites have thi time next year– presuming we Work Hard To Make Sure Hillary Gets To Spend More Time With Her Family.

  5. I was always told by my parents not to stare and Gawker is proof that my parents are very wise.

  6. I’ll confess – I spend a lot of time on Jez and io9. I freaking love i09 – yeah, I skip the periodic race/gender rants but I love the series recaps, the teaser/trailer/con reports, all that stuff. I think putting it in Gizmodo works. Gizmodo and io9 are fairly non-loony left, for values of Gawker properties.

    I like Jezebel too but then I never read the political stuff – the OMG Look What This Horrible Republican (But We Repeat Ourselves) Said stories. Granted, I’m not a republican I’m a libertarian squish but still – the closed minded cranial rectum atmosphere is bad.

    But I like their girly stuff – sex, makeup, etc – and their pop culture – and I love the pissing contest (most embarrassing time you cried / worst honeymoon stories, etc.) Some of the commenters are exactly what you’d expect at Jezebel, but some are great.

    There are already way too many great gossip sites (I highly recommend DListed.) I think taking Jezebel that route is stupid. I also think a far, far smarter move would be to remove ALL politics from Gawker – make it news and gossip.

    There’s some really good popsci material on Gizmodo and i09, too. I hope they stick around.

    I’d really miss the Orphan Black/iZombie/Doctor Who discussions and recaps.

Comments are closed.