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

"coverage" of gamergate

unbookmarks thread

i don't know how anyone could say gawker is better than vice. gawker journalism is celebrity scandals and other web institution fuckups.

― Mordy, Tuesday, July 21, 2015 4:22 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah noisey Atlanta was a real fuckin accomplishment

When is Joan Crawford going to start a boycott for grantland for the golf club story

The thing that is better about gawker of course is that if there had been a "gawker Atlanta" gawkers employees would be able to call it out publicly

If you know of another site that does that in six months plz let me know so I can like it on the facebook

Of course, now that it's inviolable principles are oops actually violable if the brands get mad, nm it's exactly the same

not wanting to sell out to #brands/capitalism seems quaint when in the big picture gawker is mostly just lucky that it still makes economic sense for #brands to associate w/ people who produce online content, some of which is journalistic. the struggle to ensure that journalism is economically viable in any form seems like 'the more important struggle' than the one between edit and ad. doesn't gawker already have some form of native advertising anyway? but when no one's a journalist nobody will be left to betray their principles.

xp - Kind of dirty for you to ride so hard to be Max's replacement, man.

I just think it sucks that journalists worried about their jobs feel obligated to always fear burning bridges and that's pretty much an extension of the problem of ensuring journalism is viable. It's not some separate issue

lol in what profession is it not dangerous to burn bridges when you quit a job, srs question

man it sucks so bad. siqq Joan Crawford burn btw, bro.

I'm slightly cynical about the *values of journalism* being so sacrosanct and separate from the values of the marketplace -- what journalists' instincts tell them is a "good story" is very much influenced by the marketplace, and this is a perfect example, except that it was kind of a misfire.

Lol as soon as you say something that isn't an unqualified damning of max and Jordan --like, half the people here seem to think Denton is the reasonable one?--it turns into an ad hom about my supposed careerism? If anything what I'm saying here is more likely to limit my opportunities in the future but keep dragging my own career into it

When is Joan Crawford going to start a boycott for grantland for the golf club story

― supreme problematics (D-40), Tuesday, July 21, 2015 2:39 PM (15 minutes ago)

are there any other semi-prominent musicians you want to bring into this deej?

Circle jerking about the sanctity of editorial independence and acting like 'journalists' are Catholic Workers out there doing the Lord's work seems to come in direct proportion to the banality and irrelevance of the journalism.

http://gawker.com/hip-hop-writer-makes-bid-to-replace-gawker-editor-1686895611

I'm slightly cynical about the *values of journalism* being so sacrosanct and separate from the values of the marketplace -- what journalists' instincts tell them is a "good story" is very much influenced by the marketplace, and this is a perfect example, except that it was kind of a misfire.

― five six and (man alive), Tuesday, July 21, 2015 4:51 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Which is why there is value in the existence of a company that exists as an inverse marketplace, whose $ interests are in reporting on the things others won't?

Fwiw in case I haven't said this in the strongest terms or it's like required to post here, Jordan's post sucks and I don't think their operating procedure needs to make a space for that; someone should have checked it.

But this idea that gawker is pure evil and vice is more benign is hilariously off

are there any other semi-prominent musicians you want to bring into this deej?

― sarahell, Tuesday, July 21, 2015 4:54 PM (42 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I didn't bring this up, someone else did

hey I hate Vice too fwiw

no one is saying that gawker is pure evil, most ppl are saying it sucks enough that we don't really give a shit if it suffers

Circle jerking about the sanctity of editorial independence and acting like 'journalists' are Catholic Workers out there doing the Lord's work seems to come in direct proportion to the banality and irrelevance of the journalism.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Tuesday, July 21, 2015 4:55 PM (17 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

At very least this is not the example I'd choose to jerk to.

I don't care what anyone says about how Vice's journalism may have improved/been stepped up over the years their shitty business practices and lengthy history of prior shitty things like big upping adorable white supremacists or promoting the use of racial slurs or basically just being entitled neo-republican assholes means I will never click on any of their bullshit

xp

looks like mods fixed the "calling a dude out ... shit gets heated" deej post

good job mods!

Oh I don't think Vice is benign at all, I think they're kind of an evil empire, but they have done some amazing international reporting, and I doubt Gawker has done a single article that would stand up to Vice's 10-20 best videos.

At very least this is not the example I'd choose to jerk to.

― five six and (man alive), Tuesday, July 21, 2015 4:57 PM (47 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm not defending this example--this is why I mentioned the grantland piece--sometimes publications fuck up! All publications. I'm talking about the fallout since then

The Times pays David Brooks and paid Judith Miller but I don't hold that against the rest of the paper.

Next time anyone realnames a user I will make a controversial mod decision that will probably get me yelled at.

J04n Cr4wf0rd is advocating for the same kind of moratorium fwiw

― Cory Sklar, Tuesday, July 21, 2015 2:16 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Lol wow sorry I didn't put a number in his name

The fallout is as much about the Gawker staff actively celebrating their shittiness when they don't have anything positive to point to to offset that shittiness.

I don't think the proportions of good/bad are the same with Vice as they are with the NYT

xp

Oh bullshit. You used a unique identifying name vs "john" - don't pretend otherwise.

Next time anyone realnames a user I will make a controversial mod decision that will probably get me yelled at.

― how's life, Tuesday, July 21, 2015 5:02 PM (14 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Can you go back and make sure all the times balls has used my real name in ilx history have been properly edited too then, thanks

doing a bangup job respecting other people's privacy here deej, maybe you ARE gawker material!

do you have stalkers deej srs qstn

The Times pays David Brooks and paid Judith Miller but I don't hold that against the rest of the paper.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Tuesday, July 21, 2015 5:01 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Why not?

I don't think the proportions of good/bad are the same with Vice as they are with the NYT

deej, do you hang with your anticon bros on a regular basis? i run into one at the Missouri Lounge every so often

Lol the hypocrisy levels in this thread are hilarious

Might as well ask the mods to please edit all examples of my full name on this board, since all of a sudden were being extra sensitive to that

no we're being sensitive to the needs/requests of one poster whose made his needs/wishes clear over quite a long period of time

to be fair, a search for your full name, yields 90% results that are not you on the 1st page, as opposed to the real name that you posted, which 100% leads to the person in question.

NYT has something called an op-ed page which is clearly delineated as *the space where we allow for differing views* -- and it's sort of corny and antiquated in the internet age and still fuck them for publishing David Brooks regularly and paying his salary, but he doesn't really represent the larger sensibility or philosophy of the paper except that he tries to translate/obfuscate his conservative bullshit for a liberal audience.

the difference is that the person in question has specifically asked (repeatedly) that his identity be kept as low-key as possible. You could have done that but didn't.
I've never even interacted with him, I don't think, but it's hard to have missed those requests over the years.

but i don't think it's unreasonable for you to want your real name expunged too

david brooks is just an affirmative action hire

the style section is actually more morally repulsive

but i don't think it's unreasonable for you to want your real name expunged too

agree. it's simply a matter of respecting people's wishes re: their own privacy.

where are you guys seeing all this great Vice content? Most things that show up in my feed are because Noisey will "premiere" practically any MP3 a publicist flings at them

It's almost time to stop holding Gavis McInnes against them (almost).

This time will never come for me.

xp - some of those mp3s are by bands that are pretty good though

vice was built on giggling racism, drug use, and creepshots of people wearing stupid clothes. there's no way make a big distinction between that and gawker's economy of gossip

i mean yeah they've kind of "grown up" now that mcinnes got booted

both vice and gawker have run a lot really great first-person guest essays of one kind or another.

it really does feel like people forgave an empire built onof ironic racism, softcore porn and casual homophobia because they have money now and might be handing out jobs

also their new SJW schtick reads totally fucking fake and disingenious too