What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Gawker files for bankruptcy. Today was a good day. (1 Viewer)

Jaysus said:
What's the alternative to Deadspin?  I checked out Barstool, and I like the snark, but they seem like way lower quality articles. 
Click to expand...
Think Barstool is actually a rightier-wing version of Deadspin, if I'm not mistaken. Same gossip premise and salacious material included.

 
well barstool really does a lot of mysogonistic stuff if you are in to that and if that is right wing then my opinion of right wing just hit the sharter take that to the bank brohans 

 
Vice might be somewhat close to  a Deadspin replacement? Not perfect but left-leaning with a mix of politics and sports not afraid to call people out. I'm not a dedicated reader so this may be off base, just the closest that comes to mind for me. 

 
Capella said:
Somebody should just round them up and start a site. 
Click to expand...
footballguys should buy these guys and start footballguysspin and the motto can be not stickin to sports and stickin it to the man bam another riddle solved by the old swcer take that to the bank bromigos

 
SWC said:
well barstool really does a lot of mysogonistic stuff if you are in to that and if that is right wing then my opinion of right wing just hit the sharter take that to the bank brohans 
Click to expand...
And Deadspin airing or publicizing a girl getting ####ed in a stall in Indiana or wherever in public during a football game wasn’t? They had to take it down.

 
Not the Iowa woman, either. God, they were a microcosm of all things wrong with modern journalism and people here miss it. Totally salacious, politically confused jerks. I dislike Margary. The more I remember and Google, the more I think — good riddance to all that. Like a National Enquirer for a leftist sportsnik.

 
rockaction said:
Not the Iowa woman, either. God, they were a microcosm of all things wrong with modern journalism and people here miss it. Totally salacious, politically confused jerks. I dislike Margary. The more I remember and Google, the more I think — good riddance to all that. Like a National Enquirer for a leftist sportsnik.
Click to expand...
You might like their article “it’s okay to log off” 

 
Northern Voice said:
You might like their article “it’s okay to log off” 
Click to expand...
SIck burn on those who don't, like, "log off." Like, totally sick. 

It's really okay to keep going, too, especially when there seems to be a Twitter internet pile-up on your doorstop. I found the woman, as a reader, more convincing than her detractors. And I didn't even read the person who gets paid to do commentary on those who don't log off or they'd have nothing to write about.

Doesn't seem parasitical at all. 

So do whatever.

Like, I said, I just won't miss the socio-political leanings of the sites and their adherence to salacious gossip. Good riddance.

 
rockaction said:
And Deadspin airing or publicizing a girl getting ####ed in a stall in Indiana or wherever in public during a football game wasn’t? They had to take it down.
Click to expand...
i didnt know about that becauese i didnt really read deadpin all that much either but i agree that is crap too still doesnt make the mysgonism of barstoll sports any better bromigo take that to the bank 

 
The real beauts are the ones who insist that a synthesis of politics/whatever subject is the main subject is absolutely warranted and don't get the point that people might either disagree with the conclusion or that there are those who just want to read about the main subject being covered. In those cases, a person is viewed as a fool or a useful idiot/acquiescent type. It's a blueprint for the nag, the scold, the lecturer, those with a certain political disposition to assume that which has not been granted, namely, their opinion on off-subject views.

It tends towards and rewards the obnoxious, the know-it-all, the declarant, positions that only those either in the know or in good stead occupy. It's chummy, exclusive, non-persuasive, and tiresome in its outlook.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I honestly don't know what a lot of people are going to do when Trump is no longer president.

There's a whole cottage industry of people who have been making the same 6 or 7 lame and obvious jokes for the past 4 years. Some of them very well paid for some reason.

I'm not a fan at all (he's an objectively terrible person who is in no way fit to be president), but it's is bizarre how obsessed people are with making "clever" little zingers about him.  So yeah, I am looking forward to the time when our sports media gets back to mostly talking about sports. Sports are supposed to be an escape from serious stuff

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
The real beauts are the ones who insist that a synthesis of politics/whatever subject is the main subject is absolutely warranted and don't get the point that people might either disagree with the conclusion or that there are those who just want to read about the main subject being covered. In those cases, a person is viewed as a fool or a useful idiot/acquiescent type. It's a blueprint for the nag, the scold, the lecturer, those with a certain political disposition to assume that which has not been granted, namely, their opinion on off-subject views.

It tends towards and rewards the obnoxious, the know-it-all, the declarant, positions that only those either in the know or in good stead occupy. It's chummy, exclusive, non-persuasive, and tiresome in its outlook.
Click to expand...
You are particularly overbearing tonight, trying to meet a word count or something?

 
TLEF316 said:
I honestly don't know what a lot of people are going to do when Trump is no longer president.

There's a whole cottage industry of people who have been making the same 6 or 7 lame and obvious jokes for the past 4 years. Some of them very well paid for some reason.

I'm not a fan at all (he's an objectively terrible person who is in no way fit to be president), but it's is bizarre how obsessed people are with making "clever" little zingers about him.  So yeah, I am looking forward to the time when our sports media gets back to mostly talking about sports. Sports are supposed to be an escape from serious stuff
Click to expand...
I agree with your general premise, but Roth is particularly astute at this.

 
TLEF316 said:
I honestly don't know what a lot of people are going to do when Trump is no longer president.

There's a whole cottage industry of people who have been making the same 6 or 7 lame and obvious jokes for the past 4 years. Some of them very well paid for some reason.

I'm not a fan at all (he's an objectively terrible person who is in no way fit to be president), but it's is bizarre how obsessed people are with making "clever" little zingers about him.  So yeah, I am looking forward to the time when our sports media gets back to mostly talking about sports. Sports are supposed to be an escape from serious stuff
Click to expand...
Deadspin has not been talking about sports way before trump because the president. 

 
Northern Voice said:
You are particularly overbearing tonight, trying to meet a word count or something?
Click to expand...
You're particularly dismissive and in the right in your own mind. Figured I'd respond and make it totally clear the litany of the types people to whom I'm referring instead of making oblique abstractions and dismissive put-downs without addressing the person I'm putting down. That way I can be clear about who and what I like and what tendencies they have. 

Passive-agressiveness is not my strong suit, I guess. I just call it as I notice it, all comers welcomed, all guilty parties named. (If I've got the time and inclination, that is.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Somebody ought pay me for being overbearing. Then I could post a video of two guys ####### in a steamed up car before the Bills game and call it one-stop journalism for the enlightened. Now preëmpted a word salad, didn't it?

Actually, overbearing is more like the journalistic standard of the New Yorker making sure one has his umlauts correct. Disliking invasive and prying journos is a critical damn pastime in this country. It actually is the foundation of privacy law in the U.S.

See the Brandeis note on privacy at the turn of the 20th century. That's when privacy torts and constitution protection began. 

RIP Deadspin, we hardly knew ye. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TLEF316 said:
I honestly don't know what a lot of people are going to do when Trump is no longer president.

There's a whole cottage industry of people who have been making the same 6 or 7 lame and obvious jokes for the past 4 years. Some of them very well paid for some reason.

I'm not a fan at all (he's an objectively terrible person who is in no way fit to be president), but it's is bizarre how obsessed people are with making "clever" little zingers about him.  So yeah, I am looking forward to the time when our sports media gets back to mostly talking about sports. Sports are supposed to be an escape from serious stuff
Click to expand...
This has been going since Clinton, actaully. I can remember it. It's when the political ran amok and became personal, as was the nature of his lawsuits and affairs. It's actually something that might have been adopted from evidentiary changes and emphasis in law. That is, that which was private became subject to suits and public scrutiny in the legal world, and was therefore public knowledge or fair game from journalism's standpoint. Whatever one things about his scandal, one can be sure that coverage of the president and of sexual matters in general changed with first Anita Hill and GWHB and then had the floodgates open with Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones.

It's not non-partisan these days like it was back then, and those who speak so loudly about Trump were likely silent or supporters of President Obama, but the Clinton presidency -- and then especially the first Bush one -- is when the call for extraneous politcal jokes and commentary wound up in your separate journalistic sections, which up until then was faring quite well.

Cue Keith Olbermann, anyone? 

 
I don't understand going to Deadspin to read about sports. There's ten million places where you can discuss the cover two, I want to read about all the nefariousness among people of power, sports and otherwise.

 
roadkill1292 said:
I don't understand going to Deadspin to read about sports. There's ten million places where you can discuss the cover two, I want to read about all the nefariousness among people of power, sports and otherwise.
Click to expand...
It honestly seems like most people here have no idea what deadapin was about. Hilariously, including the guy who bought them. 

 
rockaction said:
You're particularly dismissive and in the right in your own mind. Figured I'd respond and make it totally clear the litany of the types people to whom I'm referring instead of making oblique abstractions and dismissive put-downs without addressing the person I'm putting down. That way I can be clear about who and what I like and what tendencies they have. 

Passive-agressiveness is not my strong suit, I guess. I just call it as I notice it, all comers welcomed, all guilty parties named. (If I've got the time and inclination, that is.)
Click to expand...
 I posted a one line joke about one of their articles that clearly reminds me of you, you wrote seven five hundred-plus word essays and apparently continued to research and go deeper into a site that you hate so much and basically doesn't exist anymore anyway, talk about manufacturing your own outrage. 

You say I think I'm in the right, I haven't even taken a stand. It was a one off joke to someone who used to be able to take one, followed by several wildly disproportionate reactions. 

Seriously. https://youtu.be/Dkk9gvTmCXY

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As of right now deadspin no longer employs a single editor or writer. 
 

let’s remember some writers 

 
Northern Voice said:
 I posted a one line joke about one of their articles that clearly reminds me of you, you wrote seven five hundred-plus word essays and apparently continued to research and go deeper into a site that you hate so much and basically doesn't exist anymore anyway, talk about manufacturing your own outrage. 

You say I think I'm in the right, I haven't even taken a stand. It was a one off joke to someone who used to be able to take one, followed by several wildly disproportionate reactions. 

Seriously. https://youtu.be/Dkk9gvTmCXY
Click to expand...
Jeez, man. Don't let the output outweigh the emoji. I'm trying to explain my position, and getting called "overbearing" and stuff.

Peace? 

Better peace offering: https://youtu.be/PKfD8d3XJok

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Capella said:
It’s kind of scary how people just give in and accept what they get fed. 
Click to expand...
Interesting, but I think that's a false dichotomy. It's not necesarily a lack of rebellion or being spoon-fed corporate media that is viewed as an acceptable state of things. One need not agree with the politics of corporate America (not of the right-wing, which has its own program for the media) to disavow Deadspin, Barstool, or Gawker. 

I'm more wondering where this went. In other words, that we have a degree of privacy expectations even when in public. 

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-daily-times-democrat-v-graham

And suit sniffing? Please. That's a rather serious charge, and I doubt any of the dissenters prior raising their voices in the thread would be guilty of the charge. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
And suit sniffing? Please. That's a rather serious charge, and I doubt any of the dissenters prior raising their voices in the thread would be guilty of the charge. 
Click to expand...
No, but most Barstool followers seem to be the biggest boot lickers on the planet and Portnoy was brought up, I assume that's where the comes from...

I think it will be interesting to see if this has any impact in terms of media brands. Deadspin is dead, in my opinion, in terms of the brand name and the website. Which got me thinking, I have never in my life typed "deadspin.com" into my browser and I don't have it as a bookmark and I never followed their account on Twitter. But I certainly had read articles on their site. I didn't follow David Roth or Maggie Haberman or Barrie Petchesky. So how was I getting to their site? I guess through articles retweeted on my Twitter timeline or posted here (though even that I don't remember seeing a lot of)?

The writers after this week have probably all increased their "brand" (whether you agree with it or not, they stood by the whole "speaking truth to power" thing that was a primary focus) and Deadspin killed theirs. So, the writers will mostly find homes or create their own within a relatively short period of time and G/O media have already seen the value of their acquisition plummet. 

In the future, it doesn't seem like it would make sense to buy a popular blog or website, if you can just poach/give raises to the best writers - they'll bring their following with them and the name of the site at the top of the page doesn't really matter because everyone just clicked a Twitter link to get there anyway (this is obviously what The Athletic has chosen to do).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Athletic has made the bet that people will pay a subscription if you give them good writers and good stories without all the ads.  They are proving to be right as places like Sports Illustrated are chopping staff left and right and they seem to be growing stronger.

 
The Athletic has writers and stories that make you feel like you're missing out if you don't have a subscription. When I had a free trial, the amount of stories was overwhelming. And it was good.

I wish I had one. 

 
Capella said:
It honestly seems like most people here have no idea what deadapin was about. Hilariously, including the guy who bought them. 
Click to expand...
I check Barstool and Deadspin both, pretty much daily.  What I liked about Deadspin, and which no other site duplicates AFAIK, was their "without access or favor" mantra.  You knew they weren't ever writing a puff piece, they weren't going to ignore an issue that might cause political or moral backlash, or scare off an advertiser.  I did find them occasionally overbearing with the leftism-as-if-it's-objectively-the-correct-answer tone, but not so much to stop reading.

 
Capella said:
False equivalence. Nowhere near the same thing. Deadapin built a rep based off their content and the new owners tried to take it away. 
 

Most of the staff has resigned today, so the owners are stuck with a shell of a site. Brilliant. 
Click to expand...
Do you think any writers were still driving traffic there?  I mean, I still went out of habit but I'd go 2-3 times a week instead of refreshing seriously 10 times a day.  When you felt the fingerprints of AJ, it was one thing.  But this was very much a B team so one could argue the only value is the name.  These writers were all replaceable.

 
Capella said:
It honestly seems like most people here have no idea what deadapin was about. Hilariously, including the guy who bought them. 
Click to expand...
I agree that deadspin hasn't felt like deadspin since before Trump came in, but do you think they knew what they were at this point?  You seem to draw this diametric line between Barstool and Deadspin when I see Barstool as being totally birthed from deadspin.  The snark gossip thread was in both their roots.  In fairness, barstool is infinitely more gratuitous in terms of imagery but I don't get this perception of them being opposites at their core.  What annoys me about deadspin now is their sanctimonious takes would be called out occasionally in the comments as "hey aren't you the guys pushed the favre dong pics" and their until recent current editorial would refer to it as "that phase".  I don't think you get to "yada yada yada" what built your brand, so the attempted pivot, which I can respect, is fair game for a new management team to pivot again.  

Maybe it was for me the broader initiative from gawker to cross pollenate so many articles so frequently  in the deadspin feed.  It turned the site from an hourly refresh to me to something I just could do without, and it was nothing to do with politics but it was too much of a buckshot content approach.  He's a little of everything, all at once, for no reason.  So to that end, I'm curious to what you think deadspin WAS all about?    

 
Smack Tripper said:
Do you think any writers were still driving traffic there?  I mean, I still went out of habit but I'd go 2-3 times a week instead of refreshing seriously 10 times a day.  When you felt the fingerprints of AJ, it was one thing.  But this was very much a B team so one could argue the only value is the name.  These writers were all replaceable.
Click to expand...
Magary might be the most popular writer on the internet. Come on. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Max Power
Most Embarrassing Thing Someone in Your Family Does?
2 3
Replies
108
Views
2K
Zow
Zow
Max Power
Transnational crime ring targeting pro players' homes
Replies
26
Views
790
Soulfly3
Soulfly3
Ministry of Pain
MLB Commish - Rob Manfred pressures Stu Sternberg to sell the Rays...finally!
2
Replies
95
Views
2K
Ministry of Pain
Ministry of Pain

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top