Log in

No account? Create an account

gawking at gawker gawking at nyc

If you haven't read "Everybody Sucks: Gawker and the rage of the creative underclass" [nymag], what are you waiting for? When I first clicked the link and saw the page count I thought "seven whole pages about Gawker." By the end, I kind of wished there had been fourteen.


exactly. not that I ever had any chance of writing for them, but it used to seem like a fun 'blogger fantasy. after reading the article and seeing the justin.tv feed of their offices, the dream is over.
This was a surprisingly good article, finally my free subscription pays off! However at least two pages are spent confirming what everyone in the Valley has always known: Nick Denton is a raging, unethical asshole. Admittedly I have some personal reasons for this, but seriously.

The really important question: who did Emily have an affair with?? Please say it was Balk's Cock.
I thought that this bit was telling " Like most journalists trained in the British system, Denton does not believe in privacy for public figures, nor really for anyone else (except himself, apparently)."

I also thought that the online reactions to the story (a few are cataloged at fimoculous [#]) were interesting. Most referred to it as a take-down of gawker, but I didn't really read it that way. Maybe I was just too taken with the insider-ish details to see it as being particularly judgmental.
The problem is that in his own writing on Valleywag (and that of the proteges he has pooped out) makes no attempt to pursue truth above headline-grabbing fiction and/or purposefully discards the known truth entirely because it doesn't get enough page hits. Somehow I don't smell the same stench off of Gawker, but maybe I would feel differently if I were Dana Vachon's girlfriend or whatever.

I definitely didn't feel the "takedown" angle, maybe because in a lot of ways it felt like confirmation of what everyone knew or suspected all along. Like, the bad salary and hellish work schedule isn't really news, but what else do you expect from blogging? (Unless you're Heather Armstrong, apparently.) So it felt like in general things you knew, but the specific insidery details to prove you right. I don't know. Something like that.

The only takedown of any kind I saw was that they pushed the point of how different Gawker is since Elizabeth Spiers left, which I felt was almost to the point of saying it's worse without her. Maybe I am just projecting my own opinion though.