Reading the news was never supposed to be fun.

Journalism has historically displayed itself in a rather stuffy light — factual, dry blocks of text with few pictures filled the first newspapers.

But BuzzFeed, Gawker Media and similar “news” outlets have stepped in to corner the market on edutainment. Articles about puppies, butts and pizza appear alongside the latest political campaign happenings — all wrapped up under the increasingly meaningless word “journalism,” but with some “fun” injected into it.

One of these “funny” articles, “Even for a Minute, Watching Hulk Hogan Have Sex in a Canopy Bed is Not Safe For Work but Watch it Anyway,” has landed Gawker in some hot water recently. The media company faces upwards of $115 million — almost half of its net worth — in damages to the professional wrestler. Gawker faces a very real threat of bankruptcy — and good riddance.

Gawker is finally getting what it deserves after years of terrible practices, but the outlet is only a drop in the bucket of new-media pseudo-journalism.

When these new-media outlets aren’t dumbing down their readers, they’re exploiting clickbait for revenue or carelessly printing articles for attention and page views. These sites are not reliable sources of journalism — they’re the Internet equivalent of grocery store tabloids. And to ensure better quality news, we as readers have to give our clicks to worthier outlets.

In our postmodern age of excessive media consumption, many people do not want to hunker down and read a dozen-page feature article about current events. Millennials want flashy, humor-driven entertainment and listicles with virtue-signaling and self-identification, such as “18 Ways All-Girl’s School Prepared You for the Real World” and “20 Times Emma Watson Shut Down Sexism in the Best Damn Way.”

BuzzFeed is the monarch of this practice. According to Digiday, around 52 percent of the 74.5 million millennials who use the Internet frequent BuzzFeed, and the site’s most popular content is its listicles.

While BuzzFeed’s News section has always featured some serious journalism and continues to expand that department, the entertainment overshadows that content. People still come for laughs and social media content. Worse, the tacky, uninformative writing BuzzFeed is known for — and continues to run — is rubbing off on the real news it does post.

“The Secrets of the Internet’s Most Beloved Viral Marketer” is a 2012 BuzzFeed article by Jack Stuef about Matthew Inman, author of the popular web series “The Oatmeal.” The profile was rife with inaccurate information, from falsely stating that Inman was a Republican to completely empty claims about his finances. BuzzFeed’s article labeled fake social media accounts as belonging to Inman and attributed a quote to a daughter Inman doesn’t have.

The misinformation was so bad that Inman felt it necessary to post an annotated version of the profile piece, declaring it “so blatantly wrong that it borders on libelous.”

Since 2012, BuzzFeed has grown to employ more than 130 journalists based around the world. It has even earned a seat in the White House’s press briefing room. Its quality of news is improving.

But BuzzFeed’s primary content is still predominantly fluff — albeit with a slightly improved polish.

Some articles that appear to be real news stories end up being some collected social media posts and at most a quote or two, written by “contributing authors” who are really just members of the BuzzFeed community.

But it’s not the only outlet in town offering money for page views to any schmuck with a keyboard.

There’s an ever-growing number of “journalism” outlets aimed at college students that contain no characteristics of what journalism is all about. The articles have no research, no investigations and no reporting — only personal, vapid essays and exploitative confessional pieces.

While they may not be malicious, publishing outlets like Odyssey and Bustle are misleading in their copy, using lingo that alludes to professional reporting and journalism instead of the more blog-oriented content that they actually contain.

The Tab Pitt is a “news site” that recently popped up. I applied to join as a contributor, and the site accepted me. Unknown to me, the promise of a “journalism” experience was empty. The site was filled with articles such as, “These young ladies are lifelong friends and occasional lovers” and, “Leaving my comfort zone to come to Pitt was the best decision I’ve made.” I had joined the fluff confessionals without even realizing it, misled by standards that apparently don’t exist.

Pointless stories like these dilute “journalism,” but at least they don’t hurt people, right? And you can’t say the same about Gawker.

Gawker launched in January of 2003. Founder Nick Denton has summarized his personal editorial litmus test as being as simple as: “is it true, and is it interesting?”

This loose, uninhibited approach to journalism has been the common theme among all of Gawker Media’s outlets, from Gizmodo to Jezebel. Headlines are typically bold, in your face declarations or casual, conversational quips void of substance.

Gawker has made a name for itself by outing various public figures as closeted homosexuals, as well as posting intensely personal exposés on celebrities for the sake of a cheap laugh.

Take the case of the executive at Condé Nast, a rival company to Gawker, who was openly accused on the site of soliciting sex from a male escort.

The story in question had no stated purpose for its reporting, and was met with such heavy backlash that it became one of the first pieces taken down from Gawker for reasons other than legal issues or factual error. Internal debate over the story’s appropriateness caused major leadership changes and public conflict among staff.

Gawker relies on hollow journalistic ethics that its own leaders can’t agree on or understand. It does not seem to have a care in the world in regards to human decency, because drawing eyes comes first.

It is time that we as media consumers begin to act with discretion in the websites we give our page views to. We should end this trend of shoddy, harmful writing by being loyal to outlets that commit fully to solid reporting and ethical codes.

We’ve had our fun. Now let’s get serious.

Timothy primarily writes on free speech and media culture for The Pitt News.

Write to him at [email protected]