Jealous much?

Oh, snap: The Globe cautioned readers of its story about the Notre Dame football player with the fake dead girlfriend that

Now, it appears Te'o's inspiring story was a hoax. According to a report on, a website that has broken some high-profile stories but not an outlet regarded for journalistic standards, Kekua never existed.

Of course, the Globe was as invested in the Te'o story as every other media outlet in the country, but really?

The Globe is a regular re-user of stuff from, whose journalistic standards it doesn't question. And its news writers see nothing wrong with updating stories broken by Gawker, which is owned by the same company as Deadspin.



Free tagging: 


"Serious journalism"

By on

The Globe and the rest of the serious journalism world fell for this story which was at best suspicious and to a lot of people was a total crock. Deadspin researched,checked the sources, and provided the first serious journalism on the subject. And of course, being they just couldn't bring themselves to actually give us a link to the story, like every other serious and not serious online story would do.

The Globe is trying its best

By on

The Globe is trying its best to let the small percentage of people that still read it not know there are other, free ways to get the news. Especially after hiring John McCain as the new editor, their goal seems to be to target that essential suburban 65+ demographic still a little wary of this internet fad.

The Globe sucks.

By on

Replace the word "website" with "newspaper" and that sentence describes the Globe pretty well, too.

Believing the story

By on

You might believe the story if you are also willing to believe in virgin births and zombie messaiahs.

And, if you believe all of these stories, then you might also believe that the Boston Globe = journalism.

Therefore, they need to tread carefully here so as not to offend.


By on

Yes, whenever I seek out serious journalism on the latest offerings at Dunkin' Donuts, or "breaking news" that's 8 hours old, I turn to

(I know, I know,≠The Globe, but the Globe is a little too close to the .com to make a snipe like that.)

The Globe's stuck up

By on

I would rather go to Deadspin over the Globe or any variation of one of its websites to get sports info. At the Globe I'm more likely to read something by Shaughnessy. And, really, who wants to do that?

Globe = Trash

I lost any remaining respect I might have had for the journalism of the Globe when they publish this on the top of not long ago:

Yes, that is a story about how some Globe reporter happened to notice some random door in a random office in Cambridge that happened to have a small Apple logo above it.

As the article makes clear, apart from finding the door there is absolutely no news or information he has to offer. The reporter is speculating on what it could be (new Apple office?!?!?) without any information whatsoever. It's just a door in an office building with a corporate logo. Yet this is on the top front page of the Boston Globe's website.

He even updates the article to say someone told him the door and logo likely date back to the 1990s. So he's speculating about a logo that has been on a door for about 20 years. Great reporting, Globe!

I can't wait until they publish the 50 page "slideshow" of stock photo showing generic pictures of other mindless thoughts he's had in the past few days. Journalism at its finest.

That disclaimer is completely appropriate for Gawker Networks

By on

Gawker Networks is the parent company for both.

Each site has different editors and writers. Yes, there's been wildly different and inconsistent standards across the various sites. They also often cross-post stories.

A number of the Gawker sites have been suckered by the most obviously-bullshit stories and engaged in absurdly unethical and illegal behavior. Gizmodo is among the worst, like the iPhone prototype they bought illegally (CA law requires lost property be returned to the owner or the police. The "finder" had no right to sell it, and by not turning it in, was stealing it. They were knowingly buying stolen goods.) Worse, they then destroyed the phone to get shots of the guts.

They tend to leave the articles up with the outright-wrong title but just add "[updated]" to the header, to milk stories for as many page hits as they can.

They are the bottomfeeders of the internet, generally speaking - page views are blatantly the only thing that matter.

Oh yeah, and they also rarely follow the Creative Commons licensing guidelines on credit and linkbacks (where specified.)

Deadspin itself bought the

Deadspin itself bought the Brett Favre 'penis pics' and it was a huge success for them. Tabloid crap works.

Deadspin also pushed Erin Andrews T&A forever, with pure frat-boy glee, until some perv was arrested for videotaping her in her motel bathroom. How did they respond? "Oh, we weren't encouraging anyone to think of Erin as a sex object - we did it ironically!"

You don't get that stuff any more, because the wymmyn of Jezebel would be all over their patriarchal asses.

Considering some of the stuff

By on

Considering some of the stuff you can find online, I'm not sure I'd call them "bottom feeders," but they aren't known for particularly serious reporting.