« Next DVD In The Mailbox | Main | Angie's Left Breast: The Marketing Campaign »
October 15, 2007
The S&M Of GossiPorn
The following are selected pull-quotes from the New York Magazine article on Gawker, that in the schizophrenia of the day, both admonishes the horrible behaviors of GossiPorn and lovingly lingers in the moist, heated self-delusion of "blogger as celebrity" that drives much of the mania in the first place.
But the part that doesn't make me want to vomit follows:
A blog that is read by the vast majority of your colleagues, particularly younger ones, is as powerful a weapon as exists in the working world; that most of the blog is unintelligible except to a certain media class and other types of New York bitches does not diminish its impact on that group.
Like most journalists, I tend to have a defeatist attitude about Gawker, dismissing it as the Mystery Science Theater 3000 of journalism, or accepting its vague put-downs under the principle that any press is good press. After all, there aren’t lots of other news outlets that cover the minutiae of our lives, and we’re all happy for any smidge of attention and desperate for its pickups of our stories, which are increasingly essential to getting our work read. The prospect and high probability of revenge makes one think twice about retaliation. Plus, only pansies get upset about Gawker, and no real journalist considers himself a pansy. But there is a cost to this way of thinking, a cost that can be as high as getting mocked on your wedding day.
It’s long been known to magazine journalists that there’s an audience out there that’s hungry to see the grasping and vainglorious and undeservedly successful (“douchebags” or “asshats,” in Gawker parlance) put in the tumbrel and taken to their doom.
Journalists are both haves and have-nots. They’re at the feast, but know they don’t really belong—they’re fighting for table scraps, essentially—and it could all fall apart at any moment. Success is not solid.
Of all the ways in which Gawker is antithetical to journalistic ethics—it’s self-referential, judgmental, ad hominem, and resolutely against effecting change in the world—it pushes its writers to be honest in a way that’s not always found in print publications. Little is repressed; the id, and everything else, is part of the discourse.
And perhaps the most honest and most disgusting quote in the piece, which does act like a finger down a throat:
"Discretion is how I didn’t figure out how to come until I was 24 years old; discretion is why women’s magazine editors persist in treating their fellow humans like total shit; and when you’ve spent a career trying to catch others in their own indiscretions, discretion just feels a little dishonest and superior.”
And this is one reason why so much infantile behavior is so accepted... because so many people seem to think that their terribly challenging lives make any bad behavior acceptable... even superior.
And all I can say is, "Get over yourselves."
Posted by poland at October 15, 2007 05:20 PM
Comments
Heat; you got some semblance of sense out of all of that inane bullshit? Damn. That's impressive. Nevertheless; the last quote is rather skievy but a nice overshare.
Posted by: IOIOIOI ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 15, 2007 06:25 PM
I subscribe to New York magazine and I read the whole article first thing when it arrived in my mailbox and I must say that it was the most interesting article I've seen written about the difference between traditional media and the blogosphere. Of course, half the article made me want to vomit as well, but I think it really illustrates how it brings out the worst in both sides; TM tries to be more bloggy and then the blogs trash TM even more. The attacks get vicious and personal and it's gotten to the point where blogs and magazines aren't writing about their subjects anymore, but instead they're writing about themselves.
I just hope that eventually, this whole thing just caves in on itself and that what comes out the other end is a bunch of websites and magazines that actually want to have good writing on interesting subjects that aren't salacious. At one point in the article it talks about how vicious personal attacks are a way of getting a young writer noticed. I, for one, will never stoop so low to better my career. I'd rather get by on my own merits rather than try to get through by trashing others.
Posted by: Noah at October 15, 2007 06:33 PM
They seriously need to be dropped into Baghdad for a tour of duty to get their shit in perspective.
I really can't believe that that guy didn't learn how to come until he was 24 and blames it on discretion. Defamer is the only one in that clusterfuck I like to read.
Posted by: bipedalist at October 15, 2007 08:50 PM
If it makes you feel any better, Sasha, it was a woman who didn't know how to come. But I think it was probably Jeff Robinov's fault! :)
Posted by: Noah at October 15, 2007 09:07 PM
Didnt know how to grease the wheel until 24? Damn; that's sadder than that one time that kid I knew had his ball sack torn open in a mailbox. Thanks to his dickhead brother slamming the mailbox door on his balls. While his brother was sitting on top of the mailbox. What? Gossip sites? It's 21st century distraction. We have a war. We had a massive clusterfuck and loss of life on US soil. If September 11th never would have happened. People would not need this level of celebrity distraction. This all leads to me agreeing with Mark Cuban about the current state of the internet... it's temporary. Go back 10 years and look at the net and look at it now. Notice the difference. Google will fade. You Tube will fade. All of the social networks will fade, and something new will replace it. All we have to do is wait to see what ever "IT" will be.
Posted by: IOIOIOI at October 16, 2007 12:14 AM
"In 3 years the mainstream TV will be 70″ and cost less than $1500. In 5 years, it could be 100″ for $2500 dollars . Yes, you will make room for it. You will redesign the family room or your bedroom to make room." -- Mark Cuban, who sold his internet company years ago, now owns a TV network, and may not be the most reliable source
Posted by: sloanish at October 16, 2007 01:56 AM
Thanks for that story IO. That wasn't unnecessary at all!
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at October 16, 2007 03:00 AM
Thanks, Noah but still - I don't know how you escape the demands of nature. If had no idea what the body did by age 24 before I would have done something substantial with my life instead of wasting it on boys. Seriously, how the hell do you miss that bundle of nerves in the shower or whatever and what of the incurable hard-on? I don't see how discretion is any match against the great almighty bodily urge.
And I'm with you, IO. Except I don't think Google is going anywhere. I hope the self-important assholes, who are ruining the internet, become old very fast. Some of them have got to feel bad for not contributing anything meaningful to the world in any way, shape or form except to provide some entertainment to those who are bitter enough to delight in what amounts to schoolyard teasing.
Posted by: bipedalist at October 16, 2007 06:17 AM
Bipedalist; Google may have been turned into a verb, but there is a better way to search on the internet. As soon as someone figures it out, then Google will be the next Yahoo, and their stock price will get in line with reality. Over time the new thing will continually phase out all older searches and we will use that search as a VERB in terms of searching. It's just the way of things seem to go on a very young medium. Nevertheless Camel... I NEEDED A DEFLECTING SET-UP DAMN IT!
Posted by: IOIOIOI at October 16, 2007 12:36 PM
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.)