Mediaspank writes about serious issues — politics, media failures, freelancing problems — but does it with humour, sarcasm and self-aware commentary.
Do you think this style helps people engage with complex topics more easily? Many young readers prefer personality-driven writing rather than traditional “academic” analysis.
But on the other hand, does humour risk making serious points appear less credible? Where should the balance be?
Is the future of media criticism more conversational and personality-based, like Mediaspank, or more formal and objective like legacy journalism?