Just a quick thought based upon the mocking tone of a news-scraping site that only goes after low-hanging fruit:
We've all heard the Nuremberg Defense: "I was just following orders." Interestingly enough, courts and courts-martial do not feel this is sufficient defense against performing acts which are morally wrong.
Then there's the Yuppie Nuremberg Defense: "I just need to pay the mortgage." This is usually claimed whenever someone has to do something distasteful/unethical/wrong in order to pay the bills. See: the TSA.
I posit that there is also a Blogger Nuremberg Defense. To whit: "Hey, you knew I was an asshole when you started reading this blog." In other words, if you the reader feel that something is in poor taste, it's your fault for feeling that way. It's basically a non-apology in the guise of an apology.
Please note that this is not a call for censorship. You can say whatever the hell you want to say on your blog. I just feel that if you're going to be a douche, you should step up and own your words with a "Yeah, this is how I feel, and that's not going to change" rather than suggesting that your blog is some kind of subtle performance art and anyone who takes offense/doesn't find it funny is somehow not getting it.
Hell, I once lost readers because a good chunk of Canada couldn't take a joke (or understand satire, I'm not sure which.) Kindly note that I owned my words and didn't apologize for them.
Some people may think that I've done exactly the same thing that I'm accusing the other blogger of doing. Well, maybe so, and if that's the case I'll own that, too. I don't think that I have, but maybe I'm wrong. Whichever one it is, I stand by my opinions, and I won't apologize for them. I may apologize for the effects they cause -- Hey, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings -- but I won't ever apologize for my words unless I am proven to be factually wrong, e.g. I called you a lying shithead, and it was just proven to me that you weren't lying. I'm sorry I called you a liar. The shithead portion still stands.