Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Deadspin Staffers Are Quitting

thebiglead.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 83 posts

Re: Deadspin Staffers Are Quitting

#71

Post by Khaine »

mcphage wrote: post #66
Khaine wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it the owners told them to focus on sports not politics, and these "journalists" refused. It sounds to me that a site dedicated to sports, should focus on sports.

> It sounds to me that a site dedicated to sports, should focus on sports. What does it sound to you that a site not purely dedicated to sports—like say, I dunno, Deadspin—should do?

From Wikipedia:

"Deadspin is a sports news and blog website, originally founded by Gawker Media. Deadspin posts commentaries, recaps and previews of major sports stories of the day, as well as sports-related anecdotes, rumors and video"

I'm not a reader of deadspin, but if their content no longer aligned to this, and was primarily focussed on politics. Its little wonder the owners said knock it off.

Coincidentally, ESPN, has done the same thing, putting the focus back on sports[1]

[1] https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/07/espn-dan-le-batard-no-polit...

Re: Deadspin Staffers Are Quitting

#72

Post by [deleted] »

Khaine wrote: post #71
mcphage wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It sounds to me that a site dedicated to sports, should focus on sports. What does it sound to you that a site not purely dedicated to sports—like say, I dunno, Deadspin—should do?

From Wikipedia: "Deadspin is a sports news and blog website, originally founded by Gawker Media. Deadspin posts commentaries, recaps and previews of major sports stories of the day, as well as sports-related anecdotes, rumors and video" I'm not a reader of deadspin, but if their content no longer aligned to this, and was primarily focussed on politics. Its little wonder the owners said knock it off. Coincidentally, E…

[deleted]

Re: Deadspin Staffers Are Quitting

#73

Post by Khaine »

mcphage wrote: post #66
Khaine wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it the owners told them to focus on sports not politics, and these "journalists" refused. It sounds to me that a site dedicated to sports, should focus on sports.

> It sounds to me that a site dedicated to sports, should focus on sports. What does it sound to you that a site not purely dedicated to sports—like say, I dunno, Deadspin—should do?

From https://nypost.com/2019/10/30/deadspin-writers-revolt-say-th...

  Things are spinning out of control over at Deadspin.
  Several staffers at the news site announced their resignations on Wednesday — amid a struggle with their G/O Media bosses who recently   issued a memo telling writers to file only sports stories.
  
  The internal revolt began Tuesday with rebellious staffers continuing to write non-sports stories — and the deputy director saying he’d been fired for not following the directive.
  “Hi! I’ve just been fired from Deadspin for not sticking to sports,” tweeted Barry Petchesky.
  
  On Wednesday, sports writer Lauren Theisen posted an image she said was of “the meeting where management tried to get us to move past   Barry’s firing.” She then announced that she was leaving the site over how her colleagues were treated.
  Features writer Kelsey McKinney and media reporter Laura Wagner were also among the many staffers to announce they quit Wednesday.
  
  A G/O spokesperson said in a statement: “They resigned and we’re sorry that they couldn’t work within this incredibly broad coverage mandate. We’re excited about Deadspin’s future and we’ll have some important updates in the coming days.”
I don't understand why sports writers would be mad about being told to stick to sports. If I go to a sports website, I want to see sports articles. That's the job. Instead, you got progressives writing political articles tangentially related to sports if at all. If they want to write political articles, don't write for a sports site.

Compare and contrast:

https://twitter.com/gmgunion/status/1189287651146383361

I think that says it all really

Re: Deadspin Staffers Are Quitting

#74

Post by chrisseaton »

manigandham wrote: post #67
chrisseaton wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original question was this > Why don't the journalists who know how to run the business pool their resources up and start a business then? What's stopping them? What do they need those venture capital vultures for? The answer is super simple - because they would starve to death before they managed to start making a profit. Most people don’t have that much savings for a runway. Someone said ‘move to a lower cost o…

This is the same situation that the vast majority of entrepreneurs are in and they make it work. What is so special about journalists that they always need special rules or consideration?

> What is so special about journalists

They’re paid a pittance. They can’t build up any savings.

Re: Deadspin Staffers Are Quitting

#75

Post by mcphage »

Khaine wrote: post #71
mcphage wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It sounds to me that a site dedicated to sports, should focus on sports. What does it sound to you that a site not purely dedicated to sports—like say, I dunno, Deadspin—should do?

From Wikipedia: "Deadspin is a sports news and blog website, originally founded by Gawker Media. Deadspin posts commentaries, recaps and previews of major sports stories of the day, as well as sports-related anecdotes, rumors and video" I'm not a reader of deadspin, but if their content no longer aligned to this, and was primarily focussed on politics. Its little wonder the owners said knock it off. Coincidentally, E…

> I'm not a reader of deadspin, but if their content no longer aligned to this, and was primarily focussed on politics.

See, if you had been a reader for a while, you would have known that they frequently covered non-sports topics, and that's a big part of what their readers liked.

Re: Deadspin Staffers Are Quitting

#76

Post by danso »

thrower123 wrote: post #60
manicdee wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’ve missed the subtext. “Stick to sports” doesn’t mean “report only about sports.” It means, “do not follow that story any further because it makes me uncomfortable.” This could be for various reasons but ultimately means sticking to one side of an issue, omitting details that would anger the Powers That Be, or even fabricating details to put a positive spin on an otherwise damning report. “Stick to sports” means,…

That's emphatically not what "stick to sports" means. For a lot of people, sports are an oasis of tranquility carved out of the incessant rage and cultural bickering that blares 24/7 everywhere else. There's a lot of old duffers that would rather hear about David Price's fastball rather than his political positions, or Kyrie Irving's crossover dribble rather than his speculations on the geometry of the Earth. It's st…

Deadspin’s non-sports coverage had more page views than its sports posts by a 2-to-1 ratio: https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/the-adults-in-the-room-183...

Re: Deadspin Staffers Are Quitting

#77

Post by InvisibleCities »

Khaine wrote: post #71
mcphage wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It sounds to me that a site dedicated to sports, should focus on sports. What does it sound to you that a site not purely dedicated to sports—like say, I dunno, Deadspin—should do?

From Wikipedia: "Deadspin is a sports news and blog website, originally founded by Gawker Media. Deadspin posts commentaries, recaps and previews of major sports stories of the day, as well as sports-related anecdotes, rumors and video" I'm not a reader of deadspin, but if their content no longer aligned to this, and was primarily focussed on politics. Its little wonder the owners said knock it off. Coincidentally, E…

I am (was) an avid reader of Deadspin, and the non-sports content was a large part of why I read that site for 10+ odd years. The reality is that, even for people who love sports, there often isn't very much to say about them. Rather than force them to churn out the same kind of article about why LeBron James is good at basketball that you could read on any number of websites, Deadspin allowed their writers the freedom to write about whatever they wanted to, whether that was a brilliant analysis of Loony Tunes (https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/how-wile-e-coyote-explains...), poignant commentary about the ways in which journalistic language undermines sexual assault victims (https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/against-allegedly-18197033...), or tell a harrowing story about recovering from a major brain hemorrhage (https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/the-night-the-lights-went-...). The perspective offered by Deadspin was unique, and I will miss it dearly.

Re: Deadspin Staffers Are Quitting

#78

Post by throwawaysea »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #36
Consultant32452 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not forget why Thiel was upset at Gawker. They outed him as gay, putting his life in danger because he did business in places where the penalty for homosexuality is death.

No, a billionaire is not in danger of death because he does business somewhere that has such a penalty. A billionaire can afford security or not go in person. Does not going in person harm his ability to make deals? Maybe, maybe not. But that doesn't even resemble "life in danger".

This is an outrageous position to take. You’re basically acknowledging that Thiel could come to face physical violence due to Gawker’s irresponsible actions but that he could just change his actions and choices to avoid this. That is, it reads like “No his life isn’t in danger if he goes out of his way to avoid the danger”.

Re: Deadspin Staffers Are Quitting

#79

Post by manigandham »

CPLX wrote: post #20
xyzzyz wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real and less romantic story is this: The journalists at Deadspin and its sister sites, like most journalists I know, are eager to do work that makes money; we are even willing to compromise for it, knowing that our jobs and futures rest on it. An ever-growing number of media owners, meanwhile, are so exceedingly unwilling to reckon with the particulars of their own business that they refuse to accept our eagerne…

I mean they did. The actual business we are talking about was started the way you suggest, and was then destroyed by a vindictive billionaire, and is now being (apparently) mismanaged by a bunch of other rich people. Is your premise that the journalists have no right to be mad at what they perceive as an unjust wielding of economic power?

Gawker was trying to destroy someone by publishing tabloid news and then overpowering them in court, until someone richer than them showed up (because they did the same to him before).

It was their own strategy used against them in a legal battle, over tabloid news instead of some hard-hitting report. They aren't a victim in any sense.

Re: Deadspin Staffers Are Quitting

#80

Post by Dylan16807 »

throwawaysea wrote: post #78
Dylan16807 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, a billionaire is not in danger of death because he does business somewhere that has such a penalty. A billionaire can afford security or not go in person. Does not going in person harm his ability to make deals? Maybe, maybe not. But that doesn't even resemble "life in danger".

This is an outrageous position to take. You’re basically acknowledging that Thiel could come to face physical violence due to Gawker’s irresponsible actions but that he could just change his actions and choices to avoid this. That is, it reads like “No his life isn’t in danger if he goes out of his way to avoid the danger”.

Going to a very small list of countries purely to make more money, when you already have a billion dollars, is not at all a necessary or important life activity. The inability to do so is a very trivial inconvenience.
Post reply on HN