I'm not interested in defending Gawker. It I just think that the
article is not very smart and even worse - it is dull. So, for what
it's worth, a few comments, in rather random order:
• @Colonel Mustard: "They echo the
wounded carping of a popular girl who suddenly finds herself on the
other end of some disdainful remarks for once, and deals with the
situation by painting her critics as sad-sack losers and meanies who
hate the elite simply because they can't get in. It's petty and vain
and, perhaps deliberately, it misses the larger point of Gawker."
My thoughts exactly. To then offer a scolding to a satirical blog on
the subject cynicism and ethics is the height of pomposity.
• Since we're talking about "this thing looks like that thing": the
narrative of hiring managing editors ends with Emily but she isn't a
managing editor. Why does Blumencrantz focus on Emily? The whole story
seems contrived to create this lineage of Spiers, Coen, Gould:
three young innocent women full of ideals who move to New York City and
the story of how they shape Gawker and Gawker shapes them ... a
Lifetime special presentation. (Oh, and Choire was there. And there were some others too. But now it is too late.)
• @relunctant entity: "But it was too late" is also a painful stylistic cliché.
• @malegirdle: I think it is interesting
that she does NOT really make the point that "now that gawker is what
it has always mocked, will Denton pay the mockable money?"
• The argument that Gawker has become what it started out attacking
is utterly facile. What is she saying, that since Gawker has a wider
audience it has to stop criticizing the media because now it is part of
the media? Satire isn't allowed if it is actually going to have an
impact: because then it might hurt someone's feelings.
• This understanding of power leaves out tradition and prestige and privilege. For example, Gawker goes after N+1 even
if it does not have "the audience or influence of Gawker" because it is
self-important twaddle and intellectualism-manque. Gawker mocks the
arrogant unquestioning of those who believe themselves to be
representatives of the "best" or the "newest" or the "smartest" or the
"most important." Someone has to do it. Seriously. These people must be mocked.
• Blumencrantz creates this simplified history and attempts to
provide some analysis but every time she gets close to an idea she
veers away. For example, with the story of Choire and the club or the
editors' invitations to parties she seems to miss the larger point that
the Gawker writers are at a "startup" type of job where they are tasked
with going after people and institutions that they might want to work
• @Ha Ha Sound: With regard to Intern
Alexis: if you are an intern for more than a year then I think that
technically you should be called an indentured servant.