Blogebrity: The Next Generation

loldouchebags: Douchebag of the Week (August 1-7) This is...

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:15:49 -0400

Douchebag of the Week (August 1-7)

This is Washington Post employee Ian Shapira, and we’re hoping that he doesn’t think we’re going to be paying him for using this photo. But Ian appears to be kind of new to this whole internet thing—or at least that’s what you’d have to assume when he originally became “a bit triumphant” about Gawker using his otherwise forgettable story. (Note which one you’d rather read.)

Shapira actually went on to author a piece entitled “The Death of Journalism (Gawker Edition)” in which he more or less proposed we rewrite the First Amendment. (We hope Ian doesn’t mind us taking perhaps nine seconds to summarize something he probably spent a far greater number of “painstaking” hours on.) Even former WaPo Executive Editor Jim Brady didn’t see what Shapira was getting at.

When he ended by inviting Gawker to do a number on that piece as well (their logical response is here, but the funnier one is here), Shapira suggested “Whiny WashPost Reporter Makes His Point: Respect the Genuine Article.” But by ignoring the increased readership Gawker got him and getting angry only after his editor asked him to, the only point Shapira made was to respect the fact that he was a clueless douchebag.

On deciding that The Awl is a waste of my time...

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:22:47 -0400

nerdshares:

It started on Friday with Choire Sicha’s piece on the reaction against Cintra Wilson, for the classist nonsense she wrote about (quelle horreur!) a JCPenney coming to midtown. Now, both pandorasmittens and hortense have written far more eloquent posts than I could muster on why Wilson’s article is repulsive. And I’m sure Choire is at least somewhat familiar with this argument, since one of his article’s tags is “fattism” (because it’s a made up -ism! And classism is sort of only tangentially related!), but see, he likes Wilson’s article because, like most Gawker posts, it’s all bombast. Not solid reporting, not compelling opinion, just a low-class snarky down-in-the-muck insult-fest that leaves some people thinking “Ooh edgy! This is mean and therefore smart! This person’s intelligence transcends plebeian standards of decorum and tact!”

Because Choire clearly appreciates both Wilson’s message and her tone, he scrambles to find a way to justify what would seem to be unjustifiable. He concedes that Wilson is “a CRAZY PERSON,” but she has a point! He attempts a feint: that, really, it’s the quality of food in America that’s terrible but “the problem is that we are kind of not allowed to even mention it,” which is entertaining in that it is not at all the point that Wilson is making. And, he points out, Wilson apologized twice! And she’s getting roasted on her website. He then goes on to cite numerous ad hominem attacks regarding Wilson’s looks which, for him, are a super convenient straw man — because, after all, if some people attack Cintra Wilson’s looks, all arguments against the superficial nasty bullshit she’s endorsing are therefore invalid (I have to check with some professors of analytic philosophy but this logic seems sound).

And then he caps his piece with this:

Basically everyone is a nasty person. But guess what? Some of us are fat nasty people, and some of us are thin nasty people. Can’t we all get unified by our nastiness and ignore the meaningless question of size on the Internet…

He’s right; we, especially those who are intelligent enough to realize how truly bizarre the world and humans are, are all capable of being really nasty cynical jerks — about almost anything. But instead of just embracing that nastiness, shouldn’t we actually attempt to be better? I know: that’s not as funny. It’s definitely not hip. It’s also not going to score you any cool points. But maybe those things are slightly less important than, I don’t know, not reveling in the marginalization of an entire group of individuals, many of whom, in this case, are most likely overweight and shop at Penney’s for one reason: they are less privileged than you. And also, I’m sure that Choire, whose article appears next to an ad for Best Buy, would jump if JCPenney offered to buy some ad space on The Awl. I’m being cynical, Choire. Do you approve?

But usually I like The Awl. So I did my best to dismiss that lukewarm defense of jerkitude as an isolated incident. Of course, then Alex Balk, in a round-up of reviews of The Time Traveler’s Wife cheekily quotes “The Awl” as saying: “Vaginas. I’ll fuck ‘em, but God knows I’ll never understand ‘em.” It was here that I merely considered starting my own ad-supported blog called “You Really Think This Schtick Isn’t Tired? Really? No? It’s Still Interesting and Relevant and Edgy? Okay.”

And then I read this post, which is all about how Choire didn’t read that David Denby review of Inglourious Basterds in the New Yorker. No, I’m not kidding. It’s essentially an excuse for Choire to brag about dismissing Denby after “1/3 of a sentence.” (Probably because Choire is not about to indulge Denby because Denby hates snark and snarkers hate Denby.)

Okay, so that may seem like an odd final straw, but I spend a significant amount of my time banging the drum for blogging, for online journalism, for digital media in almost all of its incarnations. I have said over and over that blogging can be as responsible and well-researched and thorough as print journalism (and so has Gawker, of which Choire is an alum). And then I read something like this. People genuinely feel entitled to money made off this self-indulgent, masturbatory tripe? And then wonder why old media stalwarts have public paroxysms of agitation over the notion that blogs could replace papers? I mean, Choire speaks to potential advertisers pitching…what, exactly? All the posts he’s going to write about the articles he didn’t bother to finish reading? How exactly does that make him or The Awl any superior to That Lady Blogger With the Cupcakes and The Tutus and The Dog? It’s not that I hate cynicism (it is often appropriate) but when writers consider themselves too fucking hip to actually make an argument, I consider myself too conscientious to waste my time on them.

Keep The Internet Weird

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:53:27 -0400

Keep The Internet Weird:

fimoculous:

(responding to katiebakes, and trying to find the middle)

I’ll add this: isn’t the problem with Hotelling’s Model that everyone, on the micro-scale, thinks that they’re arguing from the middle? Every person, even the extremist, thinks they’re just being rational, the only sensible one in the room! And if I may mix suspect metaphors, it’s the Long Tail of Hotelling’s Model that interests me.

So going back to the comments on my site and others…. Spiers response was intriguing. It was, if I may summarize, “The guy publicly makes a jackass of himself, so he shouldn’t be surprised when such ridicule occurs.”

Her word was “jackassery,” which again feels like a question of defining the middle. The internet is such a big wide open place, so what precisely is the purpose in identifying its fringes and then demonstrably debasing them? Does this serve an ethical purpose — or just an entertainment one? In a word, why?

What’s all the fuss that Lodwick is an Odwick?

There is more context, of course… two more things are true: 1) Lodwick decided to live his personal life publicly, in a manner that wasn’t very smart, and 2) he’s within a pre-established circle of people, not some weirdo from another land. Perhaps this is why he deserves such scrutiny?

Maybe?

It’s true, but there remains this: Scrutiny is different than unabashed ridicule. From where does that arise?

Back to Hotelling’s Model….

I have tried to talk about this before, and failed. I’ll try again: there is an increasingly prevalent impulse to make the internet the same. This is a very subtle maneuver, and anyone who is guilty of it (including me) would undoubtedly deny it. But I propose one slice of the Gawker Voice (which is extended well beyond Gawker by now) is the primary mover of this trope: identify the fringes and then ridicule them from the center.

I’m as guilty as anyone. It’s part of living in this time.

Before you denounce this trope, try to scan the sites you normally peruse in a day. You’ll see this happening over and over and over. (“Look at this FREAK” could be a folder name for my bookmarks.) Keep the goggles on for a while, and you’ll start thinking internet is annoyingly culturally conservative. It doesn’t feel good.

But let’s get back to the middle! Of course, this isn’t really Gawker’s fault — that’s retarded. And why the fuck do we care that some people who have power get taken down every once in a while? Isn’t this inevitably good for society?

Maybe?

Yeah, I dunno. Maybe Lodwick deserves it. Hell, maybe he even wants it. But the truth is, I want Lodwick out there acting like a weirdo, and I think it’s good for the internet, whateverthefuck that means.

Ultimately I think two things: 1) I’m actually quite glad that he’s doing this, and 2) I still want to make fun of him for it.

I don’t know why that is.

Who Made Nick Douglas' Twitter Book? (Answer: Nobody New.)

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:28:13 -0400

fek:

Ok! The Official Twitter Book made by 2.0 Leprochaun Nick Douglas made its way to me today. And I’m going to spoil it this weekend because quite frankly I’m not crazy about Twitter and also, I love spoiling books (HARRY POTTER IS A HEMAPHRODITE LIKE LADY GAGS, BTW).

You probably know some of the following people, who made their way into The Official Twitter Book. Watch as the world will glean knowledge and worldly “insight” from the same people’s whose writing already permeates your face on a daily basis. Oh, also, it appears Douglas dipped into the same well a few times. Okay: a lot. So much for variety!

Self-Proclaimed Experts:
Jason Kottke
Anil Dash
Rex Sorgatz (Twice)

Political/Media Analyistas:
Rachel Sklar
Ana Marie Cox (Twice)

The Staff of Tumblr:
Jacob Bijani (Twice)
TopherChris
Meaghan O’Connell

Valleywag Alumni:
Melissa Gira Grant
Jackson West

Gawker Staff:
Scott Kidder*

TechGuys:
Kevin Rose (A Bunch Of Times)
Dens Crowley

Defamer Alumni:
Mark Lisanti
Molly McAleer

Tumblr Famous:
Tyler Coates

The New Yorker:
Sasha Frere Jones
Susan Orlean

*Previously noted as “Alumni” but YES I KNOW SCOTT STILL WORKS THERE JESSICA HE MAKES SURE I GET TO MAKE IT RAIN IN THE CLUUURB and also, for his involvement in Hype Machine, Scott should probably be classified with Rose and Crowley. If there’s anything to be said for Kidder, besides the fact that he’s terribly nice, is that he represents a pretty incredible cross-section of professional interests. Also, look at the amount of Gawker Media people on this list. Hysterical.

soupsoup: ninety9: Things that women blog about at Gawker: weddings and movies. Things that women...

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:59:38 -0400

soupsoup:

ninety9:

Things that women blog about at Gawker: weddings and movies. Things that women don’t blog about at Gawker: everything else.

Rumor has it, one of my favorite bloggers, Natasha Vargas Cooper will soon be taking over for Richard Lawson at Gawker. While she is taking over the entertainment beat, you can’t keep a writer of her talent locked in that box over there for long.

The times they are a changin'

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:14:37 -0400

Me: Hey what do you think about the new Gawker commenter system, it's pretty awesome right?
Mike: Now nobody is going to see my dumb comments...
Me: I'm putting this on my tumblr.

"Jumping to conclusions about and/or engagement in meta discussions as to the decisions, motivations,..."

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:13:25 -0400

“Jumping to conclusions about and/or engagement in meta discussions as to the decisions, motivations, and psychologies of the site’s staff, other commenters, parent company, the site itself, etc. Reasoned response to opinions and assertions presented by staff and other commenters is encouraged; accusations, insinuations, nastiness, sarcasm, etc. is not. If you have concerns and/or problems, they can and should be emailed directly to the site’s editor(s)…the comments are not the place for them.”

- New Jezebel commenting guidelines. Unclear if they apply to all Gawker Media properties.

Do as the Gawker writers say, not as they do.

(via soupsoup)

"* Rebuttal rights for the subject of an article * Web submission and publishing of tips"

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:11:55 -0400

“* Rebuttal rights for the subject of an article
* Web submission and publishing of tips”

- The two most innovative promised future Gawker features. The first would further institutionalize Nick Denton’s philosophy of “shoot first, ask for comment later,” which has been the soul of Gawker’s coverage, allowing it freedom without access and a quicker, dirtier story filing process. Giving subjects the right to prominently offer their side of a story makes Gawker’s unconventional approach to journalism more robust, defensible, and ethical.

Web tip submission will of course help Denton keep writer costs down, which will cause much gnashing of teeth should the program become wildly successful. Expect a lot of stories about it with headlines in question form: “Is Gawker Killing the Journalist?”

Gawker Comments Are Made of Stars

(via nickdouglas)

Dot-Com Stimulus Package

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:03:36 -0400

Dot-Com Stimulus Package:

fimoculous:

Gawker is bringing back the pageview bonus model. The economy has recovered! Update: They also updated commenting with some interesting features.

Foster Kamer's Unpaid Interns:

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:00:06 -0400

soupsoup:

rachellehruska:

Take a look folks [Foster Kamer is a total hypocrite but we’ll laugh it off to immaturity]
Oh snap! (previously)

Dear Foster Kamer:

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:19:23 -0400

charitini:

rachellehruska:

Last night, among several other friends, I bumped into Foster Kamer at M2 for the Nightlife Protection Committee launch party. We discussed his last post for Gawker titled “Slave Labor- the New-New Media.” Foster was extremely pleasant and a good listener. Before bumping into Foster, I had worked on the piece below, which I still think deserves to be posted, as it contains my thoughts on this topic. Foster deserves a slap on the wrist. That being said, I look forward to the next social event I will get the pleasure of running into him.

Dear Foster,

Perhaps against my better time management judgment, this is my response to the accusations leveled against me and Guest of a Guest by you in your recent Gawker “article,” in which you equated our compensation structure to “slave labor” and assumed that I don’t give a “shit about the future of journalism”. I understand how the line in the NYTimes article that described GofG as having a staff “largely unpaid” reads, however, your interpretation and understanding of this quotation is incomplete. This quotation, admittedly deserving clarification, attempts to convey the user-generated component of our content structure. It was not intended to obscure the traditional staff component of our content structure, which is paid and given health benefits (something most media companies do not offer). Your misunderstanding could have been remedied had you simply emailed me before writing your piece.

GofG is a new media website, like Gawker, which comprises of both traditional journalism elements and web 2.0 content generation elements, such as guest contributors, tweets, flickr pictures, user comments and more. It is our belief, as I believe it is Gawker’s, that a combination of both mediums speaks more to the world we live in and does not succumb to the shortcomings of adopting a singular prism.

We do not pay our unsolicited guest contributors or commenters in a traditional contractual compensation structure and neither does Gawker or Blackbook (both companies that you work for). We prescribe to the ‘virtual circle’ philosophy of web 2.0, like Wikipedia, but in addition provide a stage for name recognition, pending editorial review. Any of our content that is user generated is hand-picked by paid curators and screened to make sure it meets Guest of a Guest content standards.

As the quotation “largely unpaid staff” is one of the major foundations on which you base your argument for journalism’s decline, I find it ironic in more ways than one that you neglected to seek any comment from me regarding this quotation. Furthermore, your attempt to lump our traditional staff employees in with our summer interns and blur the distinction belies your agenda and your failure to perform basic research.

I believe that the internship experience we provide not only fits the fundamental profile of most any summer internship in any industry, but exceeds that of other new media companies. Furthermore, your assumption that our interns “probably aren’t looking for a full-time gig in what [Rachelle] does,” demonstrates your inability to grasp the sheer concept of an internship in the first place. Internships by design are supposed to help people figure out whether or not they want a full-time gig in an industry. Both parties benefit symbiotically, one getting cheaper but unqualified help that can only commit short-term (i.e. the summer), while the other, with living expenses paid, getting the experience and skills necessary to signal employers when they are ready to enter into the full-time job market.

With regard to the traditional staff component of our content structure, as mentioned before, they are paid and given health benefits that I am fairly certain very few if any media companies in our position offer. I myself am one of them, and have been duly compensated for the roughly 3,000 original content posts I have written thus far. Our traditional staff payment structures include yearly based salaries, which five of our employees receive, and sub-contractual compensation for photographers who are set up by us with paid gigs that they may not have gotten otherwise. Some of our photographer’s images have been picked up by large publications including the New York Times, one of our writers has gone on to write for Interview magazine, and another went on to write for the now defunct Page Six Magazine. I see no reason why GofG will not continue to be a great environment for someone to build a long-term paying career or to acquire the skills necessary to begin or step to a new one.

Your assertion about me “not giving a shit about journalism”, is a reckless conjecture that defies all disciplined reasoning and deserves as much attention as one made from tarot cards or a crystal ball. As you know from the Times piece, I left a secure job in finance to take on tremendous risk and a drastic pay cut to build GofG. As it stands, the world we live in isn’t perfect and the income disparity between industries does not always seem “fair” or “right.” A discourse on the root of the problem is probably one that exceeds the scope of both your and my skill sets. Journalism is by no means the only industry that feels the effects of income disparity and is by no means an occupation that anyone to my knowledge has been forced into. For better or worse, I chose to leave finance for journalism and I have taken full responsibility for my choices. While I don’t know for sure what will solve the ills of the media industry, be it low salaries, shrinking advertising spending, and readers’ unwillingness to pay for content, I’m going to bet that your shoddy journalism is not helping the problem.

Your populist demagoguery is hypocritical to say the least. Any media paradigm shift that GofG is a part of is one that Gawker was a part of or helped pioneer long before. You echo the all too familiar straw man populist arguments of networks such as FOX News that Gawker so eagerly and continually lambastes. Moreover, your idea that the onus of saving journalism should rest on the shoulders of media startups, especially during one of the worst economic climate in decades, one that has bankrupt major news corporations across the country, is preposterous.

The irony of your “article” thickens with your introduction of Sheila McClear as the spokesperson for paid journalism. As you now know, Sheila McClear wrote this piece as an upaid contributer for ASSME (contrary to your incorrect statement that she was in fact paid). Moreover, this crucial nugget of information correcting your assertion, was of course provided by an unpaid comment Sheila made on your piece. Alas, the pitfalls of not doing your paid homework seem boundless. But there’s more. ASSME in the past month has asked one of our own contributors to contribute for them for, you guessed it, free! As for Sheila, I hope she is wrong about her ‘”career” is going nowhere’ and that one day she can become a ‘real adult.’

So the philosophical imperative you pose, “is it bad for society to not pay writers?” takes on new dimensions. It definitely is when said writers don’t do their homework or proper due diligence. I suggest your new philosophical imperative be something like, “is it bad for society that writers do not pay for violating basic protocol of journalistic integrity?” Maybe the salaries in journalism are low because they implicitly pre-empt a collective penalty for all transgressions in the writing community. In other words, maybe all writers get a little more unpaid because of the unprofessionalism of a few.

Sincerely,

Rachelle Hruska

As a disclaimer, I will not address where our Hamptons house is or who owns it as you asked me to last night and this morning,for the safety of the girls that are residing there. Girls who are working their butts off for us while trusting ME to keep them safe from harm.

Beautifully said, Rachelle. I echo it 100%.

"If this turns out to be some elaborate viral campaign for American Apparel, I'm gonna be pissed."

Mon, 04 May 2009 17:52:14 -0400

"If this turns out to be some elaborate viral campaign for American Apparel, I'm gonna be pissed.":

(via katiebakes)

misterhippity: alexbalk: I think he’s got to pick a woman or a minority to fill the vacancy,...

Mon, 04 May 2009 17:45:55 -0400

misterhippity:

alexbalk:

I think he’s got to pick a woman or a minority to fill the vacancy, right?

Nope. Just someone good.

But as for the coming night-shift vacancy, well ….

It's kind of weird to be on the periphery, but not quite, of a Vanity Fair article.

Mon, 04 May 2009 17:32:15 -0400

jgh:

So last year in my first week of living in New York I went to Keith Gessen’s “Take Back The Internet” party. I met a Heeb writer I’d later perfunctorily fuck. I met Keith, who seemed taken aback that I wouldn’t drink and surmised I was a “recovering alcoholic” for refusing a beer. (WTF?) I saw Emily Gould, who was still high off her NY Times story. And Krucoff, if I remember correctly. And Moe, who seemed fun, but also stand-offish, as she probably had a right to be after all the Jezebel drama. (Oh and now YM and Krucoff don’t follow my ass b/c I’m too feminist or whatever.)

Gessen was nice.

God, Internet comment culture is bizarre, once you step back and look at it a bit. Why the fuck are people so mean? Myself included, ‘cause I’m a huge bitch. What’s up wit dat? We’re all fucking weird. Tumblrs, Gawkers. Everyone. Ya heard?

Fight For Your Right

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:50:58 -0400

karenuhoh:

doree:

Meta-interconnected-something-ness:

Mr. Kaplan will leave a New York media world that is fundamentally different than the one he entered in 1994. Just last week, the Observer broke a story about a Brooklyn con woman, the so-called “hipster-grifter,” in a news article that provided just the kind of New York intrigue and context that had been a hallmark of the newspaper. But Gawker, the Manhattan gossip blog, immediately took custody of the story, annotating it with attitude and reader-submitted sightings of the protagonist that all but obscured where the story came from in the first place.

Doree, hon? It’s your fucking story. Everyone with a brain in their head knows you OWN it.

Hear me, out there? In the cold CyberUniverse? EVERYONE WITH A BRAIN KNOWS.

"Just last week The Observer broke a story about a Brooklyn con woman, the so-called hipster-grifter,..."

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:41:10 -0400

““Just last week The Observer broke a story about a Brooklyn con woman, the so-called hipster-grifter, in an article that provided just the kind of New York intrigue and context that had been a hallmark of the newspaper. But Gawker, the Manhattan gossip blog, immediately took custody of the story, annotating it with attitude and reader-submitted sightings of the protagonist that all but obscured where the story came from in the first place.””

- David Carr on Peter Kaplan’s Observer, and just how much the media landscape has changed during his tenure. (via charitini)

chrismohney: soupsoup: biteofpythias: Every once in awhile a...

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:28:16 -0400

chrismohney:

soupsoup:

biteofpythias:

Every once in awhile a gawker commenter raises a question that really gets to the issue of where we are going to find the balance between citizen and corporate rights…

I was confused yet stimulated on skimming this until I realized that “GM” meant “General Motors” and not “Gawker Media.” Hey, thousands of jobs! Could happen. They built those blogs with their BARE HANDS.

I think we're seen enough of the........

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:25:09 -0400

soupsoup:

peterfeld:

antikris:

“So this happened” meme. I mean, we all know everyone on tumblr got wasted at some point this weekend. I’d rather see a “so this happened” which depicts someone passed out naked, curled up in the fetal position, next to a bottle of lube and some free NYC condoms. I think that’s a lot more interesting than a bunch of empty bottles, your new haircut, or what food you probably shouldnt have ate at brunch.

I had been planning an “Already Over” for “So this happened” or “so that happened.” I don’t care if you post drunk pics of yourself or whatever to show how crunked your weekend was. Just stop using that annoying expression. It is already over, along with starting your posts “In which I…” and using “the” before words that aren’t “the” (e.g., “I love the Twitter”), making reference to “the Internets” or the “Interwebs” or whatever. Just talk normal.

BTW, I trace the “So that happened” meme to Jesse Oxfeld’s farewell post after being fired from Gawker in 2006. (Note the italicized “that” — implying this was a fresh usage.) Was I just missing it before that?

Once again, we now return to your regularly scheduled bacon.

I for one am sad about this.

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:21:10 -0400

peterfeld:

youngmanhattanite:

peterfeld:

Portfolio’s Jeff Bercovici mnookins the obituary, minus references to sex in 1969. Having arranged the initial focus groups for this launch, I am sad about this.

Remember that very early meeting (summer ‘05) we had with Joanne Lipman, David Carey, etc? It’s all a blur to me now, and I don’t really care about any of this, but if I’m ever going to mention it, today’s the day.

Yes I think that was the day you* booby-trapped the magazine and set off a ticking time bomb due to explode on April 27, 2009. Clever.

*Gawker mascot Andrew Krucoff, pretending that he “can’t recall” the fatal meeting.

brianvan: youngmanhattanite: Katie and BV will “like” this...

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:17:36 -0400

brianvan:

youngmanhattanite:

Katie and BV will “like” this one.

Well, except for the part where he guts the editorial staff and dumps the non-performing properties as conditions worsen. Sure, Gawker will be around, but don’t think Pareene, Hammy et. al. will still get paid to write for it! (There will be work for them at The Awl, no worries.)