This is not a place for personal attacks or to rehash the election. This is a measured discussion regarding the front pages (yes, I still call it that) recent dramatic shift towards political activism.
Not that long ago, as Gawker Media filed for bankrupcy, the common statement by a large majority of commenters centered around finding a new home or purchaser for the few sites in the empire that had a propensity to avoid the apparent political biases worn on the sleeve by Gawker proper. I09, lifehacker, and Jalopnik were the primary sites that stood apart from the other, more vitriolic sites.
I recall previous election cycles, where the most predominent sentiment expressed was that Jalopnik and Oppo was a place to escape the bias, hate, and politics that consumed many other sites. Jalop and Oppo was a place to discuss Stang vs Camaro, Viper vs Vette, land cruisers vs prii. The comment section is far more vitriolic than ever before, and its being driven by the tone and tenor set by the editorial staff.
If there has been a shift in the editorial direction, does the editorial staff have a responsibility (not requirement) to pen an open letter to announce or discuss? At this point are we beyond reasonable policy discourse without resorting to ad hominin attacks or the marginalization of reasonable voices?