When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

November 12, 2010 -

Everyone loves a good rant, but Gizmodo writer Joel Johnson delivers a particularly scathing rebuke to readers and commenters who are often a little self righteous and overly personal when disagreeing with an article. The colorful verbal lashing from Johnson might be considered beyond the pale by some, though. Here's a bit from a section entitled "You Don't Get To Call Us Unprofessional," where the writer questions the readers' intelligence:

It goes like this: 1) We put up a post you don't like. 2) Rather than ignoring the post and enjoying a different post—or in the worst case deciding you do not enjoy the mix of stories of Gizmodo any longer and going somewhere else—you decide to express your dissatisfaction. 3) You accuse us of being unprofessional, typically without any clear indication by which standards of professionalism we are being judged.

To be fair, you are very stupid. When presented with something that does not match your very rigid preconceptions of what should entertain you this very second, you lash out with the all the weaponry at your disposal, spitting flechettes of feeble cruelty at the slightest provocation. If you could, when presented with your french fries on the left side of the plastic tray and not the obviously superior right side, you would reach across the counter and give the cashier's nipples a hard twist. And then call him unprofessional.

But the most disturbing part is about the author suffering a horrible trauma that he shared with readers, who later use it against him when they don't disagree with him over some story, or issue, or company:

So I was raped when I was a kid by a parent and I wrote about it. In case you're wondering: It f*cking sucked, but I'm much better, thank you.

But when I got into a scuffle with some commenters last week they decided to take something I'd written about that experience and use it to suggest to Brian Lam that I have anger issues. They were concerned for me, you see. They suggested therapy for my unresolved issues.

I do have anger issues, you dumb, cruel,, entitled, tunneled vision shit eaters. My anger issues are with you, because you are so foul, so unable to use the internet as a thoroughfare for human compassion or—Christ—even just a civil conversation. It's so far beyond your comprehension that perhaps you are rude or simply wrong that you'd dredge up something that has absolutely no bearing on—wait for it—arguments about gadgets.

Read the whole thing, and before you go off half-cocked and comment, understand that the story is about people going off half-cocked and commenting..

Posted in

Comments

Re: When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

Good for him!

The sort of moronism he's attacking is the reason why 6 years ago a group of people abandoned xbox.com forums and started a community for mature people. I haven't looked back since.

It's also the reason why I finally got so fed up with half-wits on the Internet and downloaded CommentBlocker 2.0 Firefox add-on. I couldn't be happier (yes, I'm blocking Gizmodo.com comments with it).

-- http://pixelantes.blogspot.com/

Re: When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

Wow, that was perhaps one of the most unprofessional things I've ever read.  When you try to defend your professionalism you should do it in a professional way.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

Or hold your words and say nothing. Remain silent and be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt.

Re: When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

The Glenn Beck of tech journalism.

Let me know when it's time to give a shit.

Re: When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

the logic in his rant is scarily similar to other rants that cry foul over the basic rules of criticism.

when he puts up a post, he is opening himself up for criticism, no matter how sophmoric or vulgar. He wants to stand on the soap box but doesn't want any tomatoes thrown at him. can't have it both ways. how does an internat journalist not get that? the fact that he's a journalist and still he doesn't get that very basic concept is the real measure of stupidity (and irony) here.

although irrelevant and inconsiderate, he also made public the facts regarding is childhood trauma. if you don't want it to be used against you, don't post anything publically that can be used against you - another basic rule that appears to be lost on this idiot.

he also had an anger attack back when the ipad got released and many techies were less than enthused. he's like on a hair trigger. but drama generates hits and so he continues to generate news on other sites and therefore still has a job. maybe not so dumb afterall, eh?

Re: When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

One of the comments best explains it for me: This kind of writer's rant best left to Facebook or Twitter, not on Gizmodo.

 

No reason to rant like that on a site story.  It only hurts the site's image.  Also, he is feeding the troll.

---------
There are only 10 types of people in this world, people who know binary and people who don't.

---------
There are only 10 types of people in this world, people who know binary and people who don't.

Re: When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

Beat me to it. I was going to say that the words 'Troll' and 'feeding' spring to mind.

Re: When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

Hey!  I might be dumb, cruel, and entitled, but my eyesight is 20/20, and I always clean the fertilizer off my goddamn vegetables before I eat them.  Always.

---
Fangamer

---
Fangamer

Re: When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

It made me smile.  But yeah, obviously it's pretty thoroughly unprofessional; he's just as bilious as the lowest-common-denominator commenters, he's just smarter and more coherent than they are.

Under the circumstances, his anger's understandable and forgivable.  There's no excuse for dredging up a guy's childhood trauma to try and win an argument.

In short: stop calling me unprofessional, you twats.

Re: When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

It's unfortunate that Gizmodo, being the bastion of editorial and journalistic integrity that they are has a problem with the Internet being well...the Internet. If they want to attract a better community, maybe they should look inward and act like proper journalists instead of the lowest common denominator be-first-at-all-costs, typical Gawker site that they are. There's no doubt most comment sections (even ones on good sites) are vile places but that's reality and always has been. If they can't take the heat, they should get out of the kitchen. In the case of Gizmodo I say yes in fact, please DO get out of the kitchen.

Parallax Abstraction
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
www.digital-lifeline.ca

Parallax Abstraction
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Re: When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

Well I can understand his annoyance, anger, and frustration. However, is this the right way to lash back? 

---------

James Fletcher, member of ECA Canada

Re: When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

I think this article is completely unprofessional, and the author has issues and should seek help.

Aw come on! Someone had to say it.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.giantbomb.com/articles/jeff-gerstmann-heads-to-new-york-takes-questions/1100-4900/ He talks about the future games press and the games industry. It is worth your time even though it is a bit long, and stay for the QA. There are some good QA04/17/2014 - 5:28pm
IanCErm so they shouldn't sell edutainment at all? Why?04/17/2014 - 4:42pm
MaskedPixelanteNot that linkable, go onto Steam and there's stuff like Pajama Sam on the front-page, courtesy of Night Dive.04/17/2014 - 4:13pm
Andrew EisenOkay, again, please, please, PLEASE get in a habit of linking to whatever you're talking about.04/17/2014 - 4:05pm
MaskedPixelanteAnother round of Night Dive teasing and promising turns out to be stupid edutainment games. Thanks for wasting all our time, guys. See you never.04/17/2014 - 3:44pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the consequences were not only foreseeable, but very likely. anyone who understood supply demand curvs knew that was going to happen. SF has been a econ/trade hub for the last hundred years.04/17/2014 - 2:45pm
Andrew EisenMixedPixelante - Would you like to expand on that?04/17/2014 - 2:43pm
MaskedPixelanteWell, I am officially done with Night Dive Studios. Unless they can bring something worthwhile back, I'm never buying another game from them.04/17/2014 - 2:29pm
PHX Corphttp://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/video-games-continue-to-break-the-mold-229561923638 Ronan Farrow Daily on Video games breaking the mold04/17/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoAh yes, because by building something nice they were just asking for people to come push them out. Consequences are protested all the time when other people are implementing them.04/17/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew Wilsonok than they should not protest when the consequences of that choice occur.04/17/2014 - 1:06pm
NeenekoIf people want tall buildings, plenty of other cities with them. Part of freedom and markets is communities deciding what they do and do not want built in their collective space.04/17/2014 - 12:55pm
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
Matthew WilsonSF have to build upwards they have natural growth limits. they can not grow outwards. ps growing outwards is terable just look at Orlando or Austin for that.04/16/2014 - 4:15pm
ZippyDSMleeIf they built upward then it would becoem like every other place making it worthless, if they don't build upward they will price people out making it worthless, what they need to do is a mix of things not just one exstreme or another.04/16/2014 - 4:00pm
Matthew Wilsonyou know the problem in SF was not the free market going wrong right? it was government distortion. by not allowing tall buildings to be build they limited supply. that is not free market.04/16/2014 - 3:48pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician