Style of journalism
- I think Gonzo is an apt description. Dog Patch Press expresses obvious bias on their twitter page to maintain views from outrage. This is indicated by their continued disinformation campaign regarding the RMFC/Raiders/Deo incident.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) .
- Regarding the "leftist politics" bit, I sent a DM to their Twitter asking if they'd characterize that as correct at least, but aside from the very recent, very small handful of things in light of the RMFC cancellation et al., I'm having trouble finding much that could be described as "leftist politics" (and even calling some of the RMFC stuff "politics" is kind of stretching it...) --Equivamp - talk 03:14, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
- Since they've confirmed that views expressed in individual pieces are not the opinion of the site as a whole, not all writers are in agreement, and such pieces make up a small (if recently popular) percentage of the site as a whole, I don't think it's appropriate to add that to the article's lead paragraph, let alone characterize it as the site's focus. The site's about page seems to be more accurate on that front.
- http://dogpatch.press/2017/03/20/disgrace-of-a-furry-celebrity/ http://dogpatch.press/2017/04/19/cartooin-animals-punching-nazis/ http://dogpatch.press/2017/04/10/rocky-mountain-fur-con-threat/ Seems pretty tabloid/Gonzo/drama perpetuating to me. Can we also get Equivamp to recuse their-self from this article? Equivamp was an active participant in the RMFC fallout via Twitter.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) .
- Nobody is expected to recuse themselves, but everyone is expected to provide sources in the cases where specific statements are challenged. You have linked several articles on Dogpatch Press - presumably those which you feel represent examples of Gonzo journalism - but what the article needs to support "X has been criticised for Y" is links to the place where a specific person (or persons) Z make a statement that "X is bad because of Y". This is because the source and context of the criticism is necessary for readers to properly evaluate that criticism. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:25, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
Whoever the drive-by poster is, they obviously have a huge stick up their ass about accountability for mismanagement. And they come to wikifur not to contribute but just to spread some resentful thought-terminating cliche to dismiss the 700 articles on the site. Like "bias" or "leftist", cliches so lazy they don't even form full sentences. "Tabloid/gonzo/drama" is an incoherent grouping of misinformation (please don't use gonzo, I have never read Hunter S Thompson.) The three articles they link are incoherent when one isn't even by a site member, its a guest submission, and another explicitly rejects the "sjw" strawman label. No labels for the site please, it's independent, listing specific topics is much better. - patch
- Technically, a subject or its creator rejecting a label doesn't make it inherently invalid, although it's something to note. Labels are an expression of opinion, which may differ between observers. Some think work which pre-dates the establishment of furry fandom can be called "furry", too… even if the creator never heard of the term. But opinions of any kind should be attributed; we shouldn't be applying potentially derogatory terms which nobody has used. (To be honest, I thought you liked 'gonzo'? ;-) --GreenReaper(talk) 14:51, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
- I liked the term Gonzo when I saw someone else using it for their thoughts... that was way back when the blog was just starting and digging for content that was pretty minor. That said, I wouldnt mind a fraction of content labeled that way, particularly satire stuff. I just dont think I could accurately claim it (since I'm not well versed in it). Mainly, thanks for attributing. It would probably fog things if that one troll's poorly informed mischaracterization was left.