hey gawker dudes. what the fuck is wrong with you?

most forbes "contributors" are unpaid and unedited, similar to huffpo "contributors"

yeah, but not let's undersell the value of forbes publishing millions of things per day, which is why everyone respects it so much

These deadspin posts are pretty much unreadable. The fact that there is money in that kind of content is bizarre.

Remains to be seen whether there is money or not.

just to throw some cents in:
- Barry Petchesky is a loathsome goon, but he should have been fired years ago, not by some shit-ass PE herb.
- I deeply miss Gawker, and was crestfallen the day Splinter was shut down.
- I fucking hate the news landscape on the internet at this juncture. It is not only single-minded in its service to capitalistic impulse and profit, it is also execrable in the brazenness of this single-mindedness. Perhaps the only plus side is that I've become more active on here again. Thanks for keeping it real(ish).

I didn’t know Barry was even controversial, ive been an avid deadspin reader for well over a decade and he never made an impression on me either way

I know he made a bunch of gross comments in 2006 before he was on staff, which the Barstool dipshits keep bringing up, but he also wrote a pretty decent apologetic essay about them years ago. He didn’t make a huge impression on me either way.

appreciating tabes weighing in, good to see you man

“Deadspin, the punk-rock, sports news and culture site”

lol

otm

"It is, however, the actual job of the executives to be the adults in the room."

hmm where have i heard that phrase before...

lmao

aksj;dlkfajkdjf paul maidment just resigned from g/o pic.twitter.com/GhIm35gOAl

— Ashley Feinberg (@ashleyfeinberg) November 5, 2019

One down one to go

can’t believe deadspin’s whole staff retired three times in a week

*resigned

He had apparently been writing the zombie-like recent content lol

omg

you can tell, that “dead inside” voice is in his email too

http://giphygifs.s3.amazonaws.com/media/3oyix5n8juXzq/giphy.gif

Isn’t forbes the OG legacy media company to be transformed into a soulless content farm?

― treeship., Monday, November 4, 2019 3:29 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

Btw, when I worked at Br1t@nn1ca, we had a CEO who would constantly cite Forbes as a model for digital-media reinvention. I always thought it just revealed the narrowness of his interests as an MBA.

why do these ghouls who take over legacy enterprises never want to do anything that respects the fucking legacy

it's always hidebound small thinkers used to the fat days who don't see the opportunities they're sitting on, replaced by bloodsucking voids who can't think of anything to do but make everything into AOL

can’t believe deadspin’s whole staff resigned three times in a week

lol yes

HR up to their necks in exit interviews.

He had apparently been writing the zombie-like recent content lol

― Jordan Pickford LOLverdrive (Neanderthal), Tuesday, November 5, 2019 12:15 PM (two hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

seriously?

People on my FB feed are still constantly reposting "content" from zombie "Newsweek" when it flatters their politics

Proponents of the content farms claim that from a business perspective, traditional journalism is inefficient.[1] Content farms often commission their writers' work based on analysis of search engine queries[1] that proponents represent as "true market demand", a feature that traditional journalism purportedly lacks.[1]

seriously?

scroll up three days

i read that he was reposting old content without acknowledgment. i didn't know he was personally writing articles like this:

https://deadspin.com/springboks-kill-lions-1839563281

hey gawker dudes. what the fuck is wrong with you?

why do these ghouls who take over legacy enterprises never want to do anything that respects the fucking legacy

because they are attempting to strip-mine the enterprise and sell it

seems like an unpleasant line of work

they find the six-seven figure salaries pleasant

they might also find a bit of pleasure in the act of desecration. maybe that’s what gives private equity its libidinal charge.

the sports car with an elevator to stow it in your garage above your other sports car probably is enough

saw this on a photo of mitt romney’s garage

xp

The truth is that sexuality is everywhere: the way a bureaucrat fondles his records, a judge administers justice, a businessman causes money to circulate; the way the bourgeoisie fucks the proletariat; and so on. And there is no need to resort to metaphors, any more than for the libido to go by way of metamorphoses. Hitler got the fascists sexually aroused. Flags, nations, armies, banks get a lot of people aroused. A revolutionary machine is nothing if it does not acquire at least as much force as these coercive machines have for producing breaks and mobilizing flows. It is not through a desexualizing extension that the libido invests the large aggregates.

https://twitter.com/UnDeadspin

https://www.thedailybeast.com/go-medias-private-equity-boss-mysteriously-scrubbed-from-site-amid-deadspin-turmoil

https://newrepublic.com/article/155627/death-rude-press-deadspin-splinter-blogs

prefacing this by saying that the vulturing of journalism and media by private equity is bad.

that said, pieces like the new republic one above never sit right with me. in most pieces that make this argument -- and there are quite a lot of them -- a lot of things are conflated under the same category, in this case "rudeness." some of those things are actively good, like investigative journalism, challenging the powerful, etc.; some of which are neutral, like saying the word "fuck"; some of which are just unpleasantness without any particular moral imperative, not punching up so much as punching everything in punch radius; and some of which are actively bad, like toxic work environments, harassment (I'd say it's bad timing for this to run on literally the same day as an expose on the years-long sexual misconduct coverups of one of the rude media outlets mentioned therein, if that weren't, like, the fifteenth such expose of it), and other things that bring about the opposite of "a more just world. there's a flailing attempt in the last third to make a distinction between good rudeness and bad, supposedly in its relationship to power and privilege; but if your "endangered rude media" includes h. l. mencken and vice, maybe it's not all that distinct from the "anti-PC media" after all.

and then the whole thing is held up as an all-or-nothing binary, with a correct side: us vs. them, snark vs. smarm, "endangered rude media" vs. "bootlickers and civility police." any attempt to tease the components apart again puts you on Team Fuck You.

which components need to be teased apart?

The truth is that sexuality is everywhere: the way a bureaucrat fondles his records, a judge administers justice... and so on

This apologia was singularly unconvincing to me. Its premise is asserted in several ways that attempt to be clever and even a bit dazzling, but its argument, when closely examined, is overwrought, superficial and weak. iow, it's a load of crap and also very bad writing.

Pareene seems to actively tease the components apart?

And even worse things have survived. Much as there is a parallel right-wing media that’s insulated from market forces by the ideological mission of its wealthy funders, there is another media that superficially resembles the endangered rude media, but effectively pursues the opposite agenda. It is the anti-P.C. media, where the audience’s vicarious thrill comes not from watching scrappy underdogs heckle their supposed betters, but from watching guys sitting comfortably atop social hierarchies belittle and dominate their lessers. The difference between a rude press and an anti-P.C. press is in each enterprise’s respective relationship to power. The anti-P.C. press certainly delights in titillating its audience, but it always, unfailingly, endorses a completely servile relationship to authority. The very idea of standing up to your boss is described as childish; the mature thing to do is accept domination and even abuse, unless and until you yourself manage to accrue some power over others.

seems pretty 'bootlickers/civility police'

i'd prefer 'fearlessness' to 'rudeness'

the whole section seems hastily tacked on to address the obvious counterargument that barstool, 8chan, donald trump, etc. are also known for being rude, but it doesn't explain how the likes of Mencken, who... does not have a particularly great or consistent record on relationships to power, or groups lower in the social hierarchy, and Vice, the incubator of Gavin McInnes and others like him, wouldn't fall into the non-"anti-PC" category. so why include them at all? those are just the obvious examples, but earlier the article mentions rolling stone with an aside about how wenner's friends were exempt from its rudeness -- how exactly does that square with "skepticism about power"?

s/triple negative/something that isn't a triple negative, you know what I mean

that's reasonable! i think it leads us into a punching up/down thing which pareene should have better addressed

He never says rudeness means inherently good/on the right side - but the existence of those publications gave a place to people who were good/on the right side but weren't going to have a voice at anything that had some kind of establishment credit. The dismantling of that means you're still going to get offensive media but not critical media.

Rolling Stone certainly published a great deal critical of those in power throughout the '70s and '80s. I never saw a Vice magazine in print, so I only know them from making fun of gentrifying creeps via Dos and Don'ts but yes they seem mostly terrible.

Annnnd...

Our statement on the recent lawsuits involving G/O Media CEO Jim Spanfeller. pic.twitter.com/ZiuhXunUKS

— GMG Union (@gmgunion) November 8, 2019