Monolithic organizations convinced that their feces is not odiferous, have a hard telling telling which criticism is basically constructive (especially if it's incivil and/or saracastic), and which is just mean-spirited, or even done for completely different reasons having to do with art of entertainment.
WR is a bit more like Billy Mitchell criticizing the Army Air Force. He was courtmarshalled for it. Hopefully we have a better sense of humor.
ED is a little like TV commentator/comedian Jon Stewart, where humor is nearly all there is. He's not criticizing the administration to improve it, because 1) he knows it's useless, and 2) the more they screw up, the better he likes it. Because it provides more material, and his goal, and where he makes his "bones," is the humor itself.
And (finally) in ED there is humor, but also some pure vindictive meaness. Cattiness. Dirt-dishing.
Billy Mitchell was frustrated at no improvement. Stewart is just as happy there isn't, but is not angry. ED is angry. At everybody.
Have you got that, you WP "badsite morons" who can't tell the difference?
