So Jezebel had an article today pointing out David Brooks' latest idiotic column:

http://jezebel.com/men-need-savin…

However, if you read that article, you'll notice it's almost entirely just block quotes with the occasional attempt at a pithy one liner. There's very little analysis except for two paragraphs that add nothing and spend half the time explaining that she didn't watch the movie that forms the central conceit of Brooks' piece nor does she care. Great, you don't need to watch it. But your article literally does nothing, you could have just posted "David Brooks is dumb, here's his article" and accomplished the same thing.

On the other hand, as I pointed out in the comments, Matt Taibbi wrote an actual takedown that included analysis and legitimate sniping and points:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs…

You see Jezebel, this is how you become relevant. By posting analysis and doing more than just Neetzanning things that may interest apparent feminists. But no, the entire website for 99% of the time simply operates on the Neetzan principle of content aggregator.

Jezebel sucks.