Deadspin editor quits, blasts G/O management

Maybe it's because I've never been an internet author, but why not use Word? It needs to go through the edit process in the CMS one way or another. Why does it matter if people can see real time edits?

 

"They want to write about whatever they want whenever the mood strikes" is correct. I'm not sure "namely Trump" is, however.

 

Just one question, because journalism: How are we so sure Wagner's article is, you know, the full truth?

We saw this once before with Grantland. And a lot of the writers there were just kind of children about things, acting like Chris Connelly was a villain.

I think these folks quit, by and large, for two reasons:

>>They'll get another gig, fast, because they're martyrs and they have the right political views in the run-up to the 2020 election. (And yes, they have talent, but lots of people have that.)

>>They don't have a gig, but didn't want to be seen as the losers who stayed behind because they needed a job. Those few, I really feel for. Because that's a tough spot. Not everyone has a nest egg to sit back on, another gig to fall in, or wealthy parents who can float them.

 

During impeachment month? During the 2020 election cycle? I'm confident you would have seen a few "Joe Biden is a crusty old fuck" posts.

 

I liked the variety of things Deadspin wrote about. Inevitably, however, someone would slip in a mention of how much they think Trump sucks into every article, no matter the topic.
Every. Single. One.
Story on the NFL? Ratings are down because MAGA hat wearing meatheads are against the players kneeling for the anthem.
Story on baseball? It's an old white guy past time, and those old white guys all vote for Trump.
Story on Tibetan monks? Trump probably hates them because they're foreigners.
If there was one reason I could get on board with the "stick to sports" decree, it was that. It was incredibly tiresome after the 4,358,933rd time.

 

Google Docs for life.

 

I’m happy to say I’m in the minority when it comes to Wagner. I think she is very sharp and good at some of the hardest parts of journalism, primarily being fearless. People here and elsewhere focus a lot on tone and respect and meanness. That’s fine. But I don’t want my alternative media critic to play nice. A lot of her media criticisms were spot on, mean or no. She called attention to a lot of Barstool’s garbage despite knowing it was going to get her harassed on a daily basis. We need more Laura Wagners in journalism, people willing to annoy the privileged and powerful and if feelings get hurt, that’s sometimes the trade off. That puts me in opposition to many of my friends, some on this thread. But I’m ok with that. Way too many people in journalism are afraid to do journalism that upsets people. She’s not. And media criticism is journalism, IMO. I’m sure it will get harder going for her considering the nukes she dropped, but she did the job Deadspin asked her to do exactly how Deadspin wanted it done. As far as I can tell, her criticisms were never personal. They were just harsh. That she hadn’t earned the right to have them with a body of work seemed to be the most frequent rebuttal, not that she was wrong. Well, if you have that gig at Deadspin, you don’t swing the hammer softly.

 

He's not a scab, no. I'd crush a scab. No one who worked for Granger's Esquire is mad at anyone who worked at Fielden's Esquire. (Except for Fielden. He sucks.) He's just a guy taking work. The Deadspin "community" is going to give you a world of shit, though. They're going to make it an impossible place to work.

Part of me kind of hopes the new Deadspin becomes the kindest, most earnest place on the Internet, almost the way punk was a response to glam.

 

Twitter is a bully chamber, and so was Deadspin for a lot of its editorial life.

 

Deadspin, for the most part, has been accurate from a journalistic standpoint. Manti Te'o and Brett Favre, in particular, helped establish it as a credible site in-between the irreverent posts.

Wagner may not be everyone's cup of tea with her opinions, but she has credibility as an in-depth reporter.

So we can play what if all you like, but unless you have something specific you believe is inaccurate, I'm not interested in playing hypotheticals.

Also, you're fixated on the site's political leanings when they've done quite a bit non-sports stories that aren't political.

Two longform pieces from 2018, one about a nutritionist and the other about a media company that happens to have a relationship to sports.

How Celebrity Nutritionist Alan Aragon Used His Status To Prey On Young Women

FanSided, Sports Illustrated's Slimy Appendage, Reeks Of Exploitation

When the higher-ups start dictating coverage, there is a palpable concern that you won't be able to write about a company they may have a relationship with. There's an ethical line that management crossed.

 

Trumpian.