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

If people really wanted the United States government to get serious about creating jobs they'd OK deficit spending at this time of stubbornly high unemployment and historically low lending rates

meanwhile
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/us/murder-rates-rising-sharply-in-many-us-cities.html

jeez gawker is responsible for that too!?

no that was related to my last post itt ... three posts up

i mean unless you think chief keef raised the murder rate in which case you could also blame gawker

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/8/9262883/jezebel-ultraviolet-abortion-ad

Gawker's advertising and editorial departments are separate, meaning Jezebel writers had no say or involvement in the matter. But ad staffers there made it clear that they wouldn't accept this 60-second spot on the Gawker network.

"My management team is not allowing us to accept ads surrounding very specific politically focused topics like abortion," an advertising representative at Gawker wrote in an email to UltraViolet's representatives, which the group then shared with Vox.

When UltraViolet's ad representative pressed on the issue — and the fact that Jezebel writers cover similar issues frequently – the same advertising representative responded, "While Jezebel’s editorial content is very feminist, our advertising management team tends to be more conservative on the advertising we can accept."

http://jezebel.com/here-s-the-abortion-rights-ad-that-vox-thinks-jezebel-d-1728810645

At no point prior to reaching out to a Vox reporter did Ultraviolet or anybody representing Ultraviolet contact Jezebel editorial directly about running the ad, or about ad sales’ rejection of the ad. Ultraviolet did not ask us if we’d be interested in an interview, the story behind the video, or in any other engagement with the campaign until an inquiry from Vox tipped us off that this story was in the works.

As Kliff notes, Jezebel staffers have no say whatsoever over what kind of ads are run on our site, just as ad sales has no say whatsoever over what kind of editorial content runs on the site. That’s how media companies run. Ad sales refusing to imply endorsement of a controversial issue—even in a way that seems to parrot the line held by most editorial staffers—is not our ad sales team kneecapping us or stifling our free speech. It’s them doing their jobs, and allowing us to do ours. No respectable media company would allow editorial decisions to be made by an ad sales team.

lol pretty weak response. then again i sort of doubt anyone reading jezebel needs to see that ad

No respectable media company would allow editorial decisions to be made by an ad sales team.

zing

i trust that editorial would continue to support the independence of the ad sales side if ad sales decided to run pro-life ads but not pro-choice ones

I guess that WTF interview this week pretty much confirmed the veracity of j0rdan's comments thread article about Fred Armisen. So there you go, one more Iraq War thwarted.

I haven't finished that one but Maron didn't seem to like him, which was amusing.

rly rly loved the harmony korine ep

i trust that editorial would continue to support the independence of the ad sales side if ad sales decided to run pro-life ads but not pro-choice ones

― usic ally (k3vin k.), Saturday, September 12, 2015 4:03 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah I doubt jezebel could handle that.

I know some other left-wing blogs accept right wing ads tho, with the attitude of being happy to take misspent money.

i can remember laughing when fox news bought a full page back cover ad in the nation saying 'we'd like to thank you for making fox news america's most watched and most trusted news network' and then laughing further at all the outraged letters over it in the next issue

i think it's weird that jordan is writing gossipy celeb stuff again and readers are just expected to take it as credible piece from a reputable writer.

Tarnishing the reputable history of gossipy celebrity stories

lol i'm gonna have to see some evidence anyone thinks he has credibility

Ok I should have said "judgemental celeb stories" like the lack of self awareness and audacity involved with an adult man that outed someone publically in 2015 to write a headline like "___ is a Terrible Person" is just really weird and insane to me.

tbf it was probably some other not quite as terrible person at gawker that wrote the headline

or this will blow over in a week like literally everything else that's ever happened on the internet idk

― lil dork (Whiney G. Weingarten), Friday, July 17, 2015 11:54 AM (1 month ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol wait do you think you've been proven right?

Ok I should have said "judgemental celeb stories" like the lack of self awareness and audacity involved with an adult man that outed someone publically in 2015 to write a headline like "___ is a Terrible Person" is just really weird and insane to me.

― chaki (kurt schwitterz), Wednesday, September 16, 2015 5:54 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

nobody expects woody paige to be good at sports, though

so what's the endgame with the kristin cavallari stuff, are they trying to make her kill herself?

Seemed lonely without a stalker, seemed like an idea to crowdsource one.

i can think of a dozen reasons why its fucked up that vice dude is doing a roundtable with obama, but i must admit "his dick touched another man's dick" isn't one of them

:D :D :D

http://ktjensen.kinja.com/chuck-c-johnson-is-the-easiest-man-in-the-world-to-tro-1736107981?rev=1444683583110

Oh dear.

"I live very comfortably, as evidenced by the fact both my kids take tae kwon do"

this thor dude is clearly too awesome for gawker

that's some a+ trolling, i like the cut of this thor guy's jib

gawker really taking down the big game

like, kudos, you trolled an idiot

sadly CCJ is a bigger deal than you'd think

Also worth noting that K. Thor Jensen isn't a Gawker writer, a point that is important to understanding that whole story.

right

ok

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/sports/football/nfl-gifs-video-sharing-twitter.html
this bodes ill across the board for new journalism; when they come for your gifs it's gonna hurt business

Also worth noting that K. Thor Jensen isn't a Gawker writer, a point that is important to understanding that whole story.

Also that Thor has been very good at obviously trolling doofi on the internets for a long time: http://shortandhappy.com/amber/

the gif thing is a nothing-burger and the NFL peaked last year.

:D :D :D

http://ktjensen.kinja.com/chuck-c-johnson-is-the-easiest-man-in-the-world-to-tro-1736107981?rev=1444683583110
― goole, Monday, October 12, 2015 4:30 PM (6 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is great. K. Thor Jensen also did a pretty amazing Achewood guest strip many years back.

good point that the NFL is over, whew

haha yeah i just stared at that post for a couple minutes

https://medium.com/matter/on-gawker-s-problem-with-women-f1197d8c1a4e

idk

it seems pretty weird that leah beckmann was cast aside after stepping into the void left by Our Righteous People, but it's hard to suggest that cook and pareene are unqualified

my consumption of gawker #content is pretty haphazard but i feel like diana moskovitz is killing it lately/(always, tbh)

editorial being invisible is an industry-wide problem (except at places where editorial are basically the only staff)

She doesn't seem to be suggesting that they are unqualified - the opposite I think - but is using it as a high-profile example to enquire whether any women would have been considered for the post (there isn't I think a definite answer, but holy shit is there a preponderance of evidence).

https://twitter.com/mkramer/status/666307020484706305

http://i.imgur.com/RrbbqbR.png

it's almost like that place is run by moronic children

that's the most painfully mid-2000s email i've ever read in my life

Reading to the tune of be my baby. Thump. Tha-thump. Thump.