hey gawker dudes. what the fuck is wrong with you?

it is true that no one read pando or talked that much about it - until they published the valleywag hatchet-job

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

i hope one day the snow melts and you all have the opportunity to leave your apartments again

no this is good they will bring the pizza right to u

it's true you can't really fuck with that logic, re: pizza

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

u used to have to call and talk to them but now u cn just open a new tab its not too bad

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

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

so do u think it wldve been better just to publish... a list

maybe with gifs, could've been the move

Tom Scocca is the David Brooks of webmedia ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

om gosh cmon on smarm was great

On Smarm was great... for me to poop on!!

jesus christ this is unacceptable

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

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.

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

dayo must've missed the internal cool kids club memo that it's ok to like on smarm

Or maybe dissing ON Smarm is how I got into the cool kids club in the first place *runs hand through hair*

Pando has one of the weirdest "About" pages:

http://pando.com/2012/01/16/why-i-started-pandodaily/

― polyphonic, Saturday, February 21, 2015 5:53 PM (29 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

that is legitimately odd

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.

“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

thx allen!

what gawker is missing is new heads of product and data

agree 100%

pando totaly sounds like some site for plushies

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-ddl3FCEAA0CAO.png

taylor swifts dog

Cats! Cats.

Does she even have a dog??

lol idk prob

Taylor had 2 Siamese-Tabby mix cats called Indy and Eliehsen who didn't like anyone else in her family apart from Taylor. She has also had two dobermans called Bug and Baby. Currently, she only has two cats named Meredith and Olivia Benson.
On Twitter she has posted pictures of her cats with funny things written on the pictures.

"has also had"- so she no longer has two dobermans called Bug and Baby? what happened to them?

She ate them

http://i.imgur.com/SRaHprP.jpg

They ate her and now operate what's left of her body, panto horse style

wow lag00n was a cowboy itt.

at least we can all agree the ny times is sleazy, except maybe for benbbag lol.

i dont think the times is sleazy idk like if there are things that all orgs that do that are bad it might say something more abt the environment in which they are operating and what they need to do to flourish rather than like that the people are bad

wow lag00n was a cowboy tedious internet addict itt.

sorry bam i have to cyberbully u now

you have to go outside

um hello i have already been outside once today

I was outside once to go get coffee and read my blogs but I forgot to buy food and now I'm eating dinner and reading ilx and have to drive home in the cold

i was outside once, never made that mistake again

I once had to chase the pizza delivery guy and few steps outside my door because he left without giving me my 2 liter Mountain Dew. My legs hurt for weeks.

i once went outside and became lost, never again found my way home. i am currently gnawing voles and communicating via pilfered iphone from beneath a freeway overpass outside burlington, vermont. i do not recommend it.

pray for contenderizer

Curious what dayo's issue is with on smarm. Don't know that it's a flawless essay as much as it is a useful one from the perspective of making an intellectual case for ppl not dodging the issues

"On Smarm" is incoherent trash. The author cherry picks examples of people who have written about or mentioned "snark" and and based on these snippets pretends that there's a consensus of negative sentiment that people have for "snark," or that there is an authoritative tone floating in the ether that gives the appearance of consensus, when it's clear to anyone who's heard the word or seen it in print that it's often an approving way to describe one's own or another's sense of humor and overall sensibility.

His definition of "smarm" is unwieldy and cannot be summed up in a sentence that an average English-speaking adult could understand; it doesn't match the dictionary definition of the word, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an English corpus with entries predating "On Smarm" that upheld the author's definition in any way. His attempts to shoehorn smarm's more tradition definition of, basically, smug unctuousness, doesn't really fit the horoscope meaninglessness of his paragraph long definition of smarm that he is trying to use to unsuccessfully to describe the tone of Julavitz and Leland and others in the new sincerity school of journalism or whatever you wanna call it. As a demonstration of how flexible and all-purpose his definition is, I will quote it here to characterize "On Smarm":

("On Smarm") is a kind of performance—an assumption of the forms of seriousness, of virtue, of constructiveness, without the substance. ("On Smarm") is concerned with appropriateness and with tone. ("On Smarm") disapproves.

A so-called "snarky" tone is definitely not a reaction to the above definition, as the author claims. A snarky tone is for being humorous or irreverent or ironic. A snarky tone might be used to disguise the weaknesses in an argument or to punch up a piece (or post) lacking substance. A snarky tone might even be a mere habit, but it's never a retaliation against an attitude or an intellectual pose.

If somebody objects to something, we absolutely live in a culture where openly objecting is just as socially acceptable as it always was, if not moreso. Dave Eggers is not the first asshole to say, eg, try writing a poem before you criticize one, and we don't need this overlong, creaky, poorly-constructed new media jack off sesh to remind us that everything is open to criticism by everyone. On the other hand, the Julavitzes are right to at least ask themselves and their readers what is the purpose of criticism, to say, for instance, that a descriptive criticism is more useful and edifying and sometimes even more entertaining than a judgmental criticism; and although there's room to disagree, "On Smarm"'s author is too foggy a thinker to mount that disagreement convincingly. He's also too priggish and goddamned smarmy and too full of shit to publish that article without looking like a hypocrite.

Dodging what issues? Are buzzfeed commenters and authors politicians caught in a scandal? Do they owe the public more than any other content farm? Do they owe the public anything at all? Are people really incapable of sniffing out bullshit, of seeing that their new media pastime is basically 21st century toilet reading? If one content farm has an editorial code of conduct that the "snarky" disapprove of, does that prevent another content farm from cannibalizing the same story from reddit or the chans or their tip inbox or wherever they're copying it from and putting it in the house style?

testify