Here are some words that, in this particular order, do not refer to anything that exists: “parody sports-style game show.” What does that mean? Does “parody” modify “sports-style” or “game show” or “sports-style game show”? What is a “sports-style game show”? “Double Dare”? Would this be a parody of “Double Dare”? I’m happy to report that we’ll soon learn what one media organization thinks that term means, thanks to the money-drunk Bloomberg Politics team.

After 14 years, the most notorious relationship in sports media has reached its end: Today, ESPN announced that it has broken off negotiations with star personality Bill Simmons, who will leave the sports behemoth when his contract is up this fall.

In late 2012, the morning after the second presidential debate, BuzzFeed published an article titled “The Debate Romney Won,” which floated the Romney campaign’s theory that the Republican candidate “came out on top — horserace analysis be damned” in the October 16 debate. The piece is mostly notable for the decision of its authors, McKay Coppins and Zeke Miller, to grant anonymity to a Romney aide so he could praise his own boss and trash President Obama as “a weak leader.” It is also notable for the fact that, two days after it was published, the entire post disappeared from BuzzFeed’s website.

Beneath the fatuous trend piece about yippity yipsters moving to L.A. that the New York Times Styles section gleefully shat out Sunday, there was some really bad writing in the Times last weekend. Let’s see what was the worst.

Around Baltimore this week—and especially in Sandtown-Winchester, Freddie Gray’s neighborhood—people have been guarded about speaking to the media. I can’t blame them.

Nicholas Kristof dedicates his New York Times op-ed column to the Baltimore riots today. Even though some people say rioting is good, Kristof explains, rioting is bad. It is bad like the police snapping a man’s neck and crushing his larynx and leaving him to die is bad. The two things are just like each other:

Magazine and website stories, despite appearances, do not come cheap. Costs involved include gas, fancy meals with gas industry shills, haircuts to look your best at gas industry galas, miscellaneous snack foods to help with research, plane tickets to go on vacation because of the stress of writing a story, various crystals and gem stones for luck, and finally there is the unnameable cost of a bruised ego when the story comes out and everyone shits on it.

The Pulitzer Prizes were announced today! They are still journalism’s most prestigious prize, even though you can win the same amount of money ($10,000) on an episode of Chopped.

Earlier this week, BuzzFeed launched an internal review of any posts that its editors or writers had deleted from the site since editor-in-chief Ben Smith was hired in January 2012. In an interview on Friday, and a memo sent to staff on Saturday, Smith revealed that the review has already uncovered three instances where complaints from the site’s business and advertising departments led Smith to delete posts.

Yesterday’s New York Times features an A1 article written by science correspondent Sabrina Tavernise about the rise in popularity of vaping among teenagers. The story quotes at least four teens, one of whom is saying on Twitter that his entire interview was a hoax.

Today, Hillary Clinton embarked on a "surprise" tour of Iowa, which started at a community college in the eastern town of Monticello. There, she spoke to a small group of supporters, and inadvertently triggered what may be the most embarrassing video we see all campaign season when MSNBC caught sight of a mob of reporters sprinting wildly after her van.

What's amazing about BuzzFeed's perpetual amnesiac/wayward-husband approach to its ethical guidelines (Today is the first day of the rest of our ethics!) is that the person who has to give voice to this ever-evolving set of rationalizations about the trial-and-error nature of developing ethics is the stolidly conventional Ben Smith, who certainly 10 years ago when I shared a newsroom with him, at the New York Observer, showed no signs of not being fully socialized to professional standards. In fact, in that light, his absurd and instantly disprovable messaging about the need to define and restrict BuzzFeed writers' use of personal opinion becomes intelligible—it is meant, consciously or unconsciously, as an appeal to stodgy, ultra-conventional journalistic values. He did not violate basic standards because he is at the helm of a post-moral money-making machine that only impersonates journalism to the extent it helps with its branding, but because he was uncomfortable with this newfangled opinion-slinging.

Yesterday we reported BuzzFeed’s decision to delete a staff-written post that criticized a viral advertisement for Dove beauty products. In response, BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith released a rather incredible internal memo that instructed the site’s writers not to “advance [their] personal opinion” and claimed that “we’ve never had to pull a post before”—which is true for BuzzFeed Life, perhaps, but not for BuzzFeed as a whole.

Wednesday afternoon, BuzzFeed published a post by staff writer Arabelle Sicardi that openly criticized a bizarre advertising campaign by Dove. (A sample passage: “The soap manufacturer wants to tell us how we feel about ourselves. And then fix it for us. With soap.”) Thursday morning, however, BuzzFeed deleted the entire post and replaced it with a single sentence: “We pulled this post because it is not consistent with the tone of BuzzFeed Life.”

Vanity Fair has published a lengthy dissection of NBC’s long-troubled news division and its most visible public persona, the disgraced Nightly News anchor Brian Williams. Any remaining faith in reversing NBC’s death spiral, sources tell the journalist Bryan Burrough, appears to be rapidly evaporating. But Burrough’s piece leaves at least one important question hanging: How on earth can Brian Williams ever return to NBC News?

With an odd sense of fanfare, the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism last night produced a 13,000-word report on Rolling Stone's profoundly flawed account of a gang rape at the University of Virginia, "A Rape on Campus," that was published last November. Their conclusion? Rolling Stone fucked up a lot.

The New York Times has quietly cut ties with Razib Khan, one of the paper’s 20 brand-new opinion writers, following our post highlighting Khan’s association with right-wing racist publications. The writer’s past work was first flagged by Slate columnist Jamelle Bouie on Twitter.

Today the New York Times announced its selection of 20 new op-ed writers who will contribute to the paper on a monthly basis. Editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal told Capital New York that his staff selected contributors with “a broad range of viewpoints and subjects and backgrounds and geographical locations and every kind of form of diversity that you can think of.” This commitment to a diversity of viewpoints is remarkably strong, as indicated by the paper’s inclusion of science writer Razib Khan.

In Wednesday's New York Times, Nick Bilton, a Styles columnist who writes about technology as you might expect a Styles columnist to, makes a foray into science journalism, questioning if "wearable tech" could be harmful to our bodies—could wearable computers, like the AppleWatch (onsaleApril24atyournearestAppleStore) be as dangerous to us...as cigarettes?