There's really too many to even remember, but for another example that didn't really get much flack but is typical of the site, last year they posted a story from an anonymous tipster about John Kerry that wasn't remotely interesting or credible: http://archive.is/bEk8c

He seems to see himself as a victim of "THE STORY." Geez, stop piling on, everyone!

Here's the twitter fight (it was Kevin Draper, not Redford): https://twitter.com/WillGor…

e SUPER gracias a Goya!

I pretty much like Magary—his undying loyalty to his GM overlords aside—but his schtick has indeed gotten kind of old and I haven't read the funbag or any of his other features in a while.

90% of what they publish is obnoxious, if harmless, bullshit. A small percentage is disgusting and/or harmful—google "Gawker conde nast executive" to see probably the worst example (tl:dr is: they collaborated with a male escort in blackmailing some CFO who was not at all a public figure, outing him in the process and…

Man, fuck that headline.

I still can't believe there's a site called "HelloGiggles"

Self-righteous douche, even for a GM writer, and he wrote the worst, longest article I've ever attempted to read (the one on Wile E. Coyote).

Burneko wrote over 8,000 fucking words on Wile E. Coyote and it was possibly the most tedious article I ever tried to read. I seriously thought it was a very dry parody of pretentious dogshit longform pieces, but it turned out it was just an example of one. Halfway through I scrolled all the way to the bottom just to…

What was funny about the Conde Nast executive story, and I think even Denton admitted this, is that it wasn't even interesting! Aside from the meta-story of why they would publish it, why would I give a shit about some nobody's sex life?

That is the least of his many crimes against humanity.

They conspicuously didn't write any posts about the guy using Grindr in Rio, even though it would normally be something right in their wheelhouse (god knows they love yelling about bad journalists), I suspect because they knew people would be out in droves calling them out on their hypocrisy.

They picked through that Sony exec's leaked emails and made fun of her for buying pubic hair dye or whatever, among other things. Which seems awfully petty at the very least, and anti-feminist to me.

I have no problem with people thinking Gawker should have won this lawsuit and continued to exist—maybe you're right, I'm not a legal expert!—but I can't understand anyone who doesn't think they're human garbage anyway, right to exist or not.

The thing is, there are all sorts of pieces of shit that Deadspin and co. will not hesitate to eviscerate. Imagine if the underlings of Stephen A. Smith or Skip Bayless went, "Actually he's a really nice and generous guy!" They would not give a shit, and I don't know why they'd expect us to give a shit.

They fired Will Gordon, the beer guy. According to his twitter feed, they fired him to court advertising bucks of big beer conglomerates, and he and some current Deadspin writer (Redford?) had a nasty little Twitter spat that was pretty funny.

During the conde nast thing, I was shocked at how insular the entire organization was. It was an absolutely disgusting article and not a single writer for them expressed any kind of dismay at it, and it's kind of where I wrote the entire thing off. For an organization that prides transparency, it was hilarious to see…

People are arguing that the newsworthiness angle should hold water in this case and maybe it should (I'm not a legal expert and it seems pretty subjective to me), but it's worth noting that "newsworthiness" is not something that Gawker has ever really given a shit about before this. Deadspin posted a leaked Kate Upton…

Likewise. Used to read it, got gradually more and more disgusted with it until the disgustingly pointless Conde Nast executive article, at which point I finally went, "What the fuck am I reading?" and never went back (except, occasionally if I'm reading Deadspin and see a particularly dumb headline in the sidebar—I…