Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

Maybe they'll also vote to create well done and actual journalism and the content which goes with such commitment and resist the urge for click-baiting and taking sides...

I don't really care how they self organize and how they decide to do labor bargaining.

As a reader I care if they can be actual journalists, people who can take time to collect the major facts or aspects of a story and not intentionally by ideology stress one aspect over another or ignore one aspect over another. If you want to have opinions do that in the editorial section -where I'd expect a mix of views, some I agree with some I disagree with.

I don't want their "narrative" or anyone else's.

View on HN

Why should the Gawker network do "actual journalism" if that need's already met by major outlets?

Granted, there are listicle happy properties (Lifehacker), but Gawker et al. filled a void with it's meta-criticism of news. It's not rare for Gawker to cover topics that are too risky for major outlets. Take for example the sports property, deadspin. I read deadspin and the deadspin writers broach newsworthy topics that would get an ESPN writer not only "banned from the clubhouse" but suspended by HQ in order to appease the team/league. Deadspin provides signal that major outlets would otherwise avoid or over-cook.

Not to over-shill for Gawker, but the commenters are pretty educated and won't let the authors off the hook if the author leaves holes in their argument. I submit that your poop should flow further down the news hill to sites like Vice.com where NYT super-journos call them out for looking at poop[1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLmkec_4Rfo

But how they self organize is important with respect to their ability to do "actual" journalism. Setting aside the fact that Gawker's whole point is to provide a narrative and to take sides, this type of agreement is important exactly for the reasons you state: collective bargaining will give them the power to push for more time to gathering facts, write bigger stories, etc. Otherwise, the corporation's interests may very well result in clickbait links and hyperbolic headlines.

Not a chance. That is who they are. The only good site in the Gawker network is Lifehacker. At least they still remain objective, to say nothing about Deadspin and Jezebel.