dear gawker dudes, hey
― lag∞n, Saturday, 21 February 2015 21:33 (nine years ago) link
good point reddening btw
― lag∞n, Saturday, 21 February 2015 21:34 (nine years ago) link
gawker media, the shining beacon of social justice that greenlit the groundbreaking and sensitive pieces "lebron james is a cocksucker" and its follow-up "lebron james is still a cocksucker"
― slothroprhymes, Saturday, 21 February 2015 21:36 (nine years ago) link
dont really know anything abt this dude but if he was one of those comedy free speech extremists (grow up my god ppl!) then the link was def relevant to not just him personally but to the culture in which he operated
― lag∞n, Saturday, 21 February 2015 21:36 (nine years ago) link
needles to say "gawker did a bad thing once" is not much of an argument
― lag∞n, Saturday, 21 February 2015 21:37 (nine years ago) link
slothrop ye will be recruited to the gawker cool kids crew yet
― flopson, Saturday, 21 February 2015 21:45 (nine years ago) link
wasn't really an argument, more an example of the prominent attitude of a media outlet that chooses to have intermittent/jarring flirtations with a sanctimonious attitude.
idk. it's not like this dude was some sort of good guy, he clearly wasn't. it's more like how so much shit throughout that network of sites always seems to come down one way or another to longstanding/previous beefs (the wittels takedown of him insulting shah, which was at least justified) or unacknowledged yet obvious pissing contests between denton and other new media robber barons over pageviews (denton vs. smith of vice, denton/biddle vs. whoever the fuck runs pando, etc.)
― slothroprhymes, Saturday, 21 February 2015 21:46 (nine years ago) link
should read "the takedown of wittels insulting shah" - that was justified, what wittels did was not
― slothroprhymes, Saturday, 21 February 2015 21:47 (nine years ago) link
i read a fair amount of gawker stuff - deadspin, jezebel, the main site - i definitely don't hate it outright
― slothroprhymes, Saturday, 21 February 2015 21:49 (nine years ago) link
isn't beejoli shah the one who tried to humiliate quentin tarantino for no reason?
― Treeship, Saturday, 21 February 2015 21:50 (nine years ago) link
i don't care at all about wittels, and i despise sexist language, especially when used the way wittels used it, but i think he was provoked into reacting that way by a site/writer that likes to provoke people so they can write about it. so it's hard for them to take the moral high ground in that case
― Treeship, Saturday, 21 February 2015 21:52 (nine years ago) link
basically slothroprhymes otm. gawker is fine/whatever, it's a gossip site, but their flirtations with sanctimonious posturing always comes across as nauseating when viewed in the larger context of what they are and what they do
― Treeship, Saturday, 21 February 2015 21:53 (nine years ago) link
the gossip stuff gawker does is m/l TMZ with markedly better writing, overseen by a head honcho who's a bit less blatantly odious than harvey levin.
other stuff they do can be quite good, especially longform articles - like tom scocca's "on smarm" piece is one of the best articles i've ever read in the past 5 or so years, online or print. and of course the folks on here who i know work for them seem cool and intelligent (i'm sure there's a bunch i don't know)
― slothroprhymes, Saturday, 21 February 2015 21:59 (nine years ago) link
feel like gawkers (the blog not the publishing empire i dont read the other blogs enough to say) sanctimony is pretty consistent for a decent size organization with lots of diff writers who are given a fair amount of freedom as far as its own internal logic, it just doesnt match up to what a lot of people think their moral code shd look like, which is totally fine and reasonable except that ppl tend to talk about this as if gawker has made an agreement to abide by some non existent universally accepted rues of sanctimony then violated them, then some nearly picked at random example of gawker doing a bad thing is held up next to a usually totally unalike example of sanctimony as proof they they are full of shit, and the amateur media critic scores a point in his imaginary arena
of course the same cld be said for all sorts of online attacks against the media, understanding organizations and their standards is hard, being all um excuse me this is fd up is like super easy lol
― lag∞n, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:00 (nine years ago) link
― Treeship, Saturday, February 21, 2015 4:53 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
i mean like
i really don't get your position treesh other than on some feeb "why can't everyone be nice all the time" tip. should pareene, richjuz, etc's "sanctimonious" writing not coexist with sleazy gossip stuff? like, if that offends your delicate sensibilities fine but intellectually idgi
― flopson, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:02 (nine years ago) link
most of gawkers sleazy stuff is not even sleazy if anything theyre kinda annoyingly proud of and play up this aspect in which they actually rarely even partake, like 99% of their gossip is comic meta internet irony abt taylor swifts dog or something, you know whats sleazy tho is reporting on the devastating fallout of wealth inequality on one page then having an entire section dedicated to selling homes to the super rich
― lag∞n, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:08 (nine years ago) link
the one time i was like ok that's it fuck gawker was when max wrote something like nic pizzicato sucks and is the annoying guy in your philosophy class and true detective s2 will suck--a position I vehemently disagree with--and saw a friend who i had been sharing my enthusiasm over the show with dissing pizz on twitter
― flopson, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:09 (nine years ago) link
lol classic autocorrect
― flopson, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:10 (nine years ago) link
the thing i h8 most that they do is report on children dying bizare pointless deaths
― lag∞n, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:10 (nine years ago) link
not sure what points i have scored w my media critique, idk can i redeem them on foodler this snowstorm really sucks
here's prob a better example of my overall issue. jezebel attacking bustle dot com (by paraphrasing chunks of a previous slate article which is fairly petty) as soon as bustle starts racking up enough pageviews to be seen as a threat is not about jezebel having some moral stance against the clickbaity articles on bustle, or even against the dude who facilitated bustle's launch (who granted is a typical silicon valley bro w/ a sketchy history). it's about seeing a competitor and pissing on it. the same thing is true with the endless valleywag vs. pando dick-measuring contest - neither is morally aggrieved by the other, they're annoyed that the other exists.
― slothroprhymes, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:12 (nine years ago) link
but w/e at the same time it's not like i want to go back to the sort of pastoral, supposedly-golden-age media environment fetishized by like, the fucking newsroom, just maybe more of a happy medium if that's achievable. maybe it isn't.
― slothroprhymes, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:14 (nine years ago) link
the attacks on bustle and valleywag were totally reasonable and warranted imo, the business motives i suspect are your own projections, especially since like buzzfeed and vox are much more serious competitors
― lag∞n, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:15 (nine years ago) link
i agree with your nytimes beef btw lagoon, that is just as disingenuous
― slothroprhymes, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:16 (nine years ago) link
like literally no one reads pando valleywag really did pick on them because they are horrible, techcrunch and mashable im sure have 1000x the traffic
― lag∞n, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:16 (nine years ago) link
i really don't think it's a stretch to think that pageviews and other metrics that drive competition might just be motivating some of these editorial decisions on occasion, that's true of every media site - not trying to say that gawker is the only one that does it.
― slothroprhymes, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:19 (nine years ago) link
it is true that no one read pando or talked that much about it - until they published the valleywag hatchet-job
― slothroprhymes, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:21 (nine years ago) link
they are def motivated by pageviews amongst other mercantile concerns im sure, but the examples you chose of attacking the competition (which is a diif issue than page views) dont make that much sense
― lag∞n, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:22 (nine years ago) link
i hope one day the snow melts and you all have the opportunity to leave your apartments again
― polyphonic, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:25 (nine years ago) link
no this is good they will bring the pizza right to u
― lag∞n, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:26 (nine years ago) link
it's true you can't really fuck with that logic, re: pizza
― slothroprhymes, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:30 (nine years ago) link
like tom scocca's "on smarm" piece is one of the best articles i've ever read in the past 5 or so years, online or print.
― slothroprhymes, Saturday, February 21, 2015 4:59 PM (32 minutes ago) Bookmark
Oh so you're one of those people I see
― 龜, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:33 (nine years ago) link
u used to have to call and talk to them but now u cn just open a new tab its not too bad
― lag∞n, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:33 (nine years ago) link
denton vs. smith of vice, denton/biddle vs. whoever the fuck runs pando, etc...
― slothroprhymes, Saturday, February 21, 2015
tbf pando is an abomination and among humans who have not, like, tortured anyone or ordered killings [who shall not be named] is the horrible-est
― resulting post (rogermexico.), Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:34 (nine years ago) link
dayo idk what you're ragging on about me complimenting a tom scocca article
pando does also suck, they're pretty blatantly in the pocket of various silicon valley folk, VCs and shit. again, the gawker network is in no way the only group of sites you could call out for this shit. be easier to make a list of media sites/publication you /couldnt/ say this shit about
― slothroprhymes, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:38 (nine years ago) link
so do u think it wldve been better just to publish... a list
― lag∞n, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:41 (nine years ago) link
maybe with gifs, could've been the move
― slothroprhymes, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:42 (nine years ago) link
Tom Scocca is the David Brooks of webmedia ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
― 龜, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:42 (nine years ago) link
om gosh cmon on smarm was great
― lag∞n, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:43 (nine years ago) link
On Smarm was great... for me to poop on!!
― 龜, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:44 (nine years ago) link
jesus christ this is unacceptable
― lag∞n, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:45 (nine years ago) link
is scocca a stodgy asshole republican, or just stodgy in general? i didnt know anything about him personally, just liked the on smarm piece a lot
― slothroprhymes, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:53 (nine years ago) link
Pando has one of the weirdest "About" pages:
http://pando.com/2012/01/16/why-i-started-pandodaily/
As a founder, I have a personal goal that’s just as important and just as core to our culture: I do not want to sell this company. I have opened nearly every meeting by telling potential investors and potential employees this, so I guess readers should know it from the beginning as well.Of course, there’s the caveat that if someone calls me tomorrow and offers $1 billion, I might cave. I do have investors after all, and everyone has a price. And I’ve been around enough entrepreneurs to know the journey changes you in ways you can’t expect. I’m as aware as anyone this resolve might soften over time.
Of course, there’s the caveat that if someone calls me tomorrow and offers $1 billion, I might cave. I do have investors after all, and everyone has a price. And I’ve been around enough entrepreneurs to know the journey changes you in ways you can’t expect. I’m as aware as anyone this resolve might soften over time.
― polyphonic, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:53 (nine years ago) link
Nah he's probably a solidly liberal white dude from an upper middle class background
His writing is just fucking awful, that's all xp
― 龜, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:55 (nine years ago) link
dayo must've missed the internal cool kids club memo that it's ok to like on smarm
― flopson, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:55 (nine years ago) link
Or maybe dissing ON Smarm is how I got into the cool kids club in the first place *runs hand through hair*
― 龜, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:56 (nine years ago) link
― polyphonic, Saturday, February 21, 2015 5:53 PM (29 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
that is legitimately odd
― lag∞n, Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:57 (nine years ago) link
Gawker's community is occasionally fantastic. I mostly read Deadspin and Jalopnik for the comments. However, both websites have fostered their respective communities for years. I really like Magary's posts too.
I don't care too much about the other websites. I find the content on io9, Kotaku, and Jezebel horrifying so I actively avoid them. I used to read Gawker more but have stopped for unknown reasons. However, I know News Feed didn't help. I'll still read posts from people I know and such. lagoon's Google Glass post ruled, for example.
I just skimmed the Gawker front page and it reminded me of the Reddit front page. The top post is a photo of a red panda. I don't think Gawker is for me anymore. And that's fine (except for this mystifying post http://gawker.com/the-real-thing-1687200510). It isn't like the Internet is absent of content.
You're welcome for this hot take.
― Allen (etaeoe), Sunday, 22 February 2015 01:00 (nine years ago) link
“One time I said to a guy that, ‘I loved learning new things. I’m a bit of an infomaniac.’ And he thought I said NYMPHOMANIAC….so he fucked me. And I said ‘No, no no…I said INFO. I’m an INFOmaniac’ And he said ‘Well, here’s some info…you just got fucked. Clean yourself up.’”
― iatee, Saturday, February 21, 2015 11:15 AM (10 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
this is really funny btw it's just less funny written down
― johnny crunch, Sunday, 22 February 2015 02:32 (nine years ago) link
thx allen!
― lag∞n, Sunday, 22 February 2015 03:08 (nine years ago) link