« Question Of The Day - The Hard R? | Main | A Small Scoop Of The Summer Sorbet »
April 09, 2007
Quotes of the Day
A rather insane read on the future of media from Emily Gould, the current editor of Gawker.com, who went on Larry King Live when Jimmy Kimmel was hosting. Kimmel has some personal issues with Gawker, but Gould reminded us dramatically why “those fucking internet people” is still used to blanket all of us on the web. (And of course, Radar Online calls this YouTube embed of a CNN show an “exclusive,” reminding us even further how absurd this can be.)
“People don’t read (Gawker) with the expectation that every word of it will be gospel. Everyone who reads it knows that it isn’t checked at all. What they read it for is the immediacy. You get an unfiltered way people perceive celebrities in real time that you don’t get from any other media.”
First, not right equals best?
“I think there is a shifting definition of what is public and what is private space… for everyone, not just celebrities. The Internet, Blogs, MySpace… no one has the reasonable expectation of being able to walk down the street and not have what they are doing be noticed by someone.”
Big Brother, thy name is cool websites.
The casual arrogance is only half as shocking as the stupidity to acknowledge it out loud on national television. But the entitlement issues of Ms. Gould, Gawker, and a whole lot of media, online and off, gets uglier each day.
Posted by poland at April 9, 2007 04:38 PM
Comments
I don;t know if it IS an entitlement issue DPo.
It's more that on the internet you really aren;t "in print" hence the fact-checking isn;t even important/an issue, you can always just "update edit" if someone objects or if Bert Fields send you a note on letterhead.
People read Gawker from voyeurism, and Defamer is a bit of that as well with additional industry 'leaks' which might be true or not.
The fact that what people read "might" be true, is enough to ensure readership.
Plus they might get tasteless pictures of someone's privates or a mug shot before anyone else.
Besides acting STOOPID is the new hip, isn't it. Gawker makes Page Six reporting look highly intelligent.
Posted by: Lota ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 9, 2007 06:11 PM
The kind of stupidity those Gawker-like sites produces is infinitely more degrading than mere gossip stories published by Page Six. They really congratulate themselves for being nasty and cruel. The example Kimmel gave is perfect: the headline about Kevin Costner's weight accompanied by a photo of Jabba the Hutt.
They're not in it to print news. They just want people to laugh about their cruelty. It's as if they're "cool" just because they're capable of making cruel jokes about rich people. They actually think they're more "noble" or less "garbage" than Page Six just because they can create stupid puns.
When Defamer first started, I used to visit it and to get a laugh or two from their headlines and posts. Then I started feeling sick of them and of myself for looking for those kind of "articles".
Everything that stupid Emily Gould girl said during the interview confirms the arrogance and the lack of any kind of moral or intellectual ambition by those behind Gawker, Defamer, etc.
Posted by: Pablo Villaca at April 9, 2007 10:14 PM
How is the cruelty that Gawker shows any different that the jokes Kimmel tells on his show every night. Kimmel is often mean spirited but I guess it's cool if you are mean to Star Jones or someone else like that. Costner is a world class jerk, everyone knows it. How often is Gawker or Defamer actually wrong?
Posted by: tfresca at April 10, 2007 07:23 AM
Well, for starters, Kimmel doesn't pass himself and his jokes as "news".
Posted by: Pablo Villaca at April 10, 2007 08:55 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)