It was also never a real news site. From the same article, have a sentence:
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis ® went first and we’ll get to him…but I want to ruminate a bit on Haley’s response.
A genuine news article will absolutely never feature the author using the word “I” outside of quote.
It has also always been genuinely shit. Another line from it:
One, she’s ignoring other ways a President could ban abortion, like via a rules change only requiring 50 Senate votes or by invoking some very horrifying legal doctrine.
The President is not a member of the Senate.
The word “horrifying” adds nothing to this sentence beyond useless editorializing, which actively hurts the article.
The author defeats their own purpose by vaguely referencing “some legal doctrine” instead of pointing to a concrete fear since the sentence started with a concrete fear.
If it does shutter, good riddance. Jezebel articles have always been worthless internet clutter.
All of the site’s employees have been fired. What the owners, G/O Media, do with the site is another matter. Obviously it is still online for whatever reason.
And not liking the style of journalism that Jezebel did is fine, but I am not really particularly inclined to debate the seriousness of such statements, because if people start nitpicking about how the President is not a member of the Senate, while the article is nowhere implying that he is, then it’s pointless to debate at all.
I quoted the article’s line that only makes rational sense if the President is a member of the Senate. Whether you choose literacy or illiteracy is entirely up to you.
Just because you play dumb by ignoring the relation between the President of the United States and the politics of his party does not make your statements any more coherent. Not that I am surprised that this is above someone who doesn’t understand the difference between a website being online and being actively maintained by a staff.
It’s not shuttered. Right this second, this link works just fine.
It was also never a real news site. From the same article, have a sentence:
A genuine news article will absolutely never feature the author using the word “I” outside of quote.
It has also always been genuinely shit. Another line from it:
If it does shutter, good riddance. Jezebel articles have always been worthless internet clutter.
All of the site’s employees have been fired. What the owners, G/O Media, do with the site is another matter. Obviously it is still online for whatever reason.
And not liking the style of journalism that Jezebel did is fine, but I am not really particularly inclined to debate the seriousness of such statements, because if people start nitpicking about how the President is not a member of the Senate, while the article is nowhere implying that he is, then it’s pointless to debate at all.
I quoted the article’s line that only makes rational sense if the President is a member of the Senate. Whether you choose literacy or illiteracy is entirely up to you.
Just because you play dumb by ignoring the relation between the President of the United States and the politics of his party does not make your statements any more coherent. Not that I am surprised that this is above someone who doesn’t understand the difference between a website being online and being actively maintained by a staff.