
The Death of the Rude Press - smacktoward
https://newrepublic.com/article/155627/death-rude-press-deadspin-splinter-blogs
======
meowface
>It’s often hard for me to imagine that anyone can grow up in this era and not
end up doubting the competence and motives of nearly everyone in charge of
nearly every American institution

Yes. Especially including Gawker network writers, like the author himself.
What he sees as "rudeness in the name of speaking truth to power", millions of
others see as low-rate tabloid-esque journalists injecting biased, poorly-
formed, condescending and contemptuous opinions into articles with the direct
intent of maliciously stirring outrage in an unwarranted and sensationalistic
manner.

The death of the Gawker / "rude" press was a long time coming.

~~~
RankingMember
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
I'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
I 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.

------
cjf4
There’s an assumption underneath the Gawkersphere snark (that this piece is a
part of) that the correctness of one particular far left political worldview
is unassailably true. This assumption undermines the entire article, because
it leaves no room for dissent.

Fortunately, most non partisans recognize the complexity of the world reaches
far beyond the limits of what one political viewpoint is able to encapsulate.

~~~
lonelappde
Gawker is not "far left".

~~~
twic
Effectively nobody in the US is "far left".

~~~
AnthonyMouse
[https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/7-things-
to...](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/7-things-to-know-
about-polarization-in-america/)

In particular, look at two aspects of the animation for "Political
Polarization of the American Public, 1994-2014": First, notice that the line
for Median Democrat moves only to the left. Second, put your pointer or your
finger over where the line for Median Democrat is in 1994 and compare that to
where it ends up in 2014. Then do the same for Median Republican.

edit: Here's the version of it that goes to 1994-2017 -- you can clearly see
what happens from 2015 to 2017 as well:

[https://www.people-press.org/interactives/political-
polariza...](https://www.people-press.org/interactives/political-
polarization-1994-2017/)

~~~
icebraining
Becoming more "consistently liberal" is hardly the same as being far-left.
Hell, even moving more to the left isn't necessarily, depending on where one
starts from, and the early 90s are not exactly known to be a left-wing era in
the US: the liberal President of the time won on a campaign on a promise of
cutting down welfare - “Two years and you’re off”; you can move quite a bit
from that without becoming a socialist.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Becoming more "consistently liberal" is hardly the same as being far-left.

Becoming more "consistently liberal" and less "mixed" is essentially the
definition of moving to the left.

> Hell, even moving more to the left isn't necessarily, depending on where one
> starts from, and the early 90s are not exactly known to be a left-wing era
> in the US

As opposed to what preceded that, i.e. Bush/Reagan?

Arguing that Democrats aren't far to the left of where they were 25 years ago
because at that time they were much closer to the center than where they are
now is just conceding the point by rephrasing it.

~~~
icebraining
Eh, sorry, I guess we're using different definitions here. I'm not saying
"Democrats aren't far to the left of where they were 25 years ago" (nor is
twic saying that, I suspect).

"Far-left", at least everywhere I've seen the term used, is not relative to a
previous position the same population held, but relative to the overall
political spectrum. It's essentially "in the subset farthest to the left one
can possibly be".

Who exactly fits into the far-left is arguable, but generally abolition of
large-scale private property tends to be a requisite.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
If nobody is far-left unless they're Karl Marx and nobody is far-right unless
they're Adolf Hitler then in practice nobody is going to be either of those
things unless they're ignorant or mentally ill, because they've both been
attempted with results so stark that no sane person could want to repeat them.

The extremes also expose the flaws of that spectrum to begin with, because
your average anarcho-capitalist would no sooner want to live under Hitler than
Stalin. But we've somehow managed to categorize as "far right" both the
proposition that no one, including the government, should ever use force to
coerce anyone to do anything, and simultaneously the proposition that the
government should use lethal force to stamp out homosexuality and racial
impurity and wrongthink. And on the other side, that far-left at the same time
means both granting equal access to power and resources to everyone and
granting total economic authority to an all-powerful central government. And
that the government should use lethal force to stamp out wrongthink. In that
sense far- _anything_ is just a useless general-purpose pejorative, so if it's
going to mean anything then it isn't very useful for it to mean that.

So I tend to think a more useful meaning is something like the category
exemplified by AOC as compared to the category exemplified by Bill Clinton.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Very well put. But in your last paragraph, "useful" probably means "useful
_for discussing the US_. That probably wouldn't classify as "far left" for
most of Europe.

And that's fine, because if we're discussing US politics, then Europe's
definition of far left is rather irrelevant.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
Yes, of course. If you put Bill Clinton in Europe he's a member of a right-
wing political party. If you put him in the US he's a Democrat who can carry
Pennsylvania and Ohio. If you put him in Saudi Arabia he's a cartoonish left-
wing extremist.

It doesn't mean anything to talk about positions or shifts over time without
some kind of a baseline.

------
helen___keller
This is just trying to spin a particular narrative out of an existing and
larger trend where information (and media in particular) is becoming less and
less valuable to individuals.

The world is saturated with hot takes, and I don't need your particular ad-
laden website to enjoy them, even if you have serious but rude journalists.
Ask every other journalist in every part of the world how the industry is
doing and you'll understand this isn't specific to the "rude press".

------
rayiner
> It is an attitude. The defining quality of rude media is skepticism about
> power, and a refusal to respect the niceties that power depends on to
> disguise itself and maintain its dominance. It’s often hard for me to
> imagine that anyone can grow up in this era and not end up doubting the
> competence and motives of nearly everyone in charge of nearly every American
> institution.

It’s weird to me that people are so unskeptical about assertions that things
are somehow completely dysfunctional in one of the freest and most prosperous
countries in the world.

Our institutions are not only the product of a vigorous democratic process,
but we can compare the results to the institutions of other vigorous
democracies. If we look to our friendly neighbor to the north, we can see that
in broad strokes, and even a lot of detailed strokes, they’ve organized their
society very similarly to ours. We can look across the pond to the U.K. or
Australia and see the same thing. To me, what warrants skepticism isn’t our
institutions, it’s those impugning the “competence and motives” of those
leading them.

~~~
pen2l
> It’s weird to me that people are so unskeptical about assertions that things
> are somehow completely dysfunctional in one of the freest and most
> prosperous countries in the world.

As someone who hails from Asia like you and has seen proper dysfunctional
systems, I agree completely.

But don't events of the past 3-4 years give you any pause? I've recently
developed a habit of reading foxnews front page, and there's a clear trend of
painting Mexicans and brown people in general as troublemakers. You and I will
agree that the system isn't really corrupt, but I think you and I will also
agree insofar as it's all ruled by money, news will be given out in the manner
in which it gets them the most money: and unfortunately that is going to be by
producing more outrage and by appealing to our laziness and our worst
instincts. Doesn't that give you any worry?

------
Simulacra
It’s not just rudeness, it’s the belief that a media publications sees itself
as immune to societal norms and values. Gawker truly believed that it could
print whatever it wanted to, and be immune to responsibility, because it
believed it was shielded by free press laws. It was nothing more than an awful
tabloid. Good riddance.

~~~
ancorevard
Calling Gawker "rude" is at the same level as calling Baghdadi an "Austere
Religious Scholar"

------
creaghpatr
Insanely obvious counterexample: Barstool Sports is growing faster than ever
in the _exact_ category that deadspin failed to maintain their traction in.

~~~
dvanduzer
Barstool is referenced more than once in the piece, but not directly by name.
Deadspin did not fail, it was murdered.

And I know you aren't saying it directly, but this really shouldn't be about
The Left and The Right. The problem is about punching up versus punching down.

~~~
meowface
Those are largely one and the same in the current culture, though.
"Progressive rude journalists" like Gawker's use "punching up" and "we're rude
only to those who deserve it" as an excuse and shield for shitty epistemology,
and as a justification for refusing civil engagement with those they disagree
with. It's who _they_ deem to be "up", and their judgment is dictated by their
personal and political biases.

"Punching up" in general is a concept unique to modern progressive philosophy,
as well. I don't believe that's a concept for the right. I understand the
thought behind it, but I think it's a very dangerous and slippery slope.

The fuzzy "up" concept for the modern left is kind of the equivalent of the
fuzzy "degenerate" concept for the modern right. They're just labels you use
to tar people you disagree with or dislike, and then you use the label as
shorthand to merit any kind of judgmental or malicious behavior towards that
group.

Also, even when one _does_ agree with their "upness" assessment, it doesn't
necessarily have any relation to the nature or deservedness of the criticism.
I agree billionaires are powerful, but you can still write hit pieces against
billionaires which misrepresent their words and positions, or imply hidden
intentions behind their words or actions with no credible evidence.

------
weeksie
We're left with the legacy of pop-SJW as a result of the blossoming of "rude
media" in the 00s and early teens. Jezebel's entire schtick was to say the
most inflammatory stuff they could think of and dress it up in pop-crit theory
clothing. The intellectual legacy of Denton's family of muck-raking websites
isn't truth-to-power journalism, it's twitter pile-ons over prom dresses.

------
mfer
> It was rude, by and large, to people who deserved it

Almost everyone can justify to themselves and people like them why someone
else deserves to be treated rudely. It's a lot harder to avoid being rude,
even to people you disagree with. It's also better for society to disagree in
other ways.

~~~
ReptileMan
There is market for rudeness. But you still have to have worthwhile context.

~~~
mfer
There is a market for a lot of things that are not good for us as individuals
or society at large. I would suggest people not feed that market. But, that's
just my 2 cents.

------
uxp100
It mentions a number of "Rude" news sources, but fails to mention Fox News,
which I think also qualifies. Rupert Murdoch started with Australian and
British papers, and I think that's an important detail. Adversarial press was
more of a British thing than an American one, or at least developed there
earlier.

------
RickJWagner
Bootlickers and the civility police didn't kill the 'Rude Press'.
Overpopulation killed the Rude Press.

A lot of 'normal' media sources rushed left to be the anti-Fox. It's become so
crowded that the field has started to thin.

------
ReptileMan
Gawker were told to shut up and dribble, not be less rude. Heaven forbid the
owners want to make a profit instead of bland social justice content.

If gawker were profitable enough, no one would have ever interfered with the
editorial process.

------
oxymoran
“It was rude, by and large, to people who deserved it: amoral and venal team
owners, predatory sports media personalities, bandwagon Warriors fans. “

Being rude to people that deserve it is the same sort of justification used
for punching Nazis. It’s easy (and a good idea)when they are wearing a
Swastika, but it’s actually not so easy to discern most of the time. And when
you are a media outlet, you peddle in most of the time scenarios resulting in
nonstop clickbait.

Good riddance.

------
buzzkillington
> Bootlickers and the civility police won. [...] And even worse things have
> survived. [...] 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. [...] a position of maximum privilege
> is male, and young, and probably has some money to throw around

The rude media has died because the rude media is boring. You can only blame
déclassé white men for the worlds problems so many times before everyone tunes
out. What was new in the 1960s is not new, interesting or even right 50 years
later.

OP should probably read some of that anti-pc media, like Mencius Moldbug or
RMS. A few people who have something interesting to say and have been
crucified for it by OP and OP's friends. To quote Moldbug (2013) [0]:

> The logic of the witch hunter is simple. [...] The first requirement is to
> invert the reality of power. Power at its most basic level is the power to
> harm or destroy other human beings. The obvious reality is that witch
> hunters gang up and destroy witches. Whereas witches are never, ever seen to
> gang up and destroy witch hunters. [...] Obviously, if the witches had any
> power whatsoever, they wouldn’t waste their time gallivanting around on
> broomsticks, fellating Satan and cursing cows with sour milk. They’re
> getting burned right and left, for Christ’s sake! Priorities! No, they’d
> turn the tables and lay some serious voodoo on the witch-hunters. In a
> country where anyone who speaks out against the witches is soon found
> dangling by his heels from an oak at midnight with his head shrunk to the
> size of a baseball, we won’t see a lot of witch-hunting and we know there’s
> a serious witch problem. In a country where witch-hunting is a stable and
> lucrative career, and also an amateur pastime enjoyed by millions of
> hobbyists on the weekend, we know there are no real witches worth a damn.

[0] [https://www.unqualified-
reservations.org/2013/09/technology-...](https://www.unqualified-
reservations.org/2013/09/technology-communism-and-brown-scare/)

