...or hang out with leggy models.
Don't be mad because I do the crossword for 20 minutes every day in one of the editorial bathrooms.
Ugh, imagine having to be the research assistant who injects kittens with AIDS. Talk about a rough day at the office.
Anyone else find it odd that these two are reciting anti-union rhetoric in a crowded Target? Who are these people shopping in the background???
I would drive one.
Yes, thank you!
Perfect way to burn through the rest of the afternoon. Thanks for the link!
Tomorrow I plan to find out once and for all if Kathy Griffin is just a brilliant character played by Andy Dick.
They left the heroin off that ingredients list too. There has to be heroin in there somewhere, right? Speaking of, I need a fix.
Oh god damn it, now I need to conform myself to another make-believe set of personality traits.
@LeBonMorte: I want to print this comment out and hang it above my desk. It's so rich!
Hammurabi, FTW!
Oh, salad jokes. Way to keep it original, commenters.
#facepalm
#facepalm
Hat tip to the original Gawker Media couple: [gawker.com]
@tipsy_hausfrau: We've already had two (that we know of), one from our first foray into Gawker Personals (holla, 2006ish) and another commenter union (we posted about it but far too lazy to find). Novel idea though!
@mwynn13: That's strange...where are you reading the site from? From the front page, all of our advertorial posts are labeled with #advertisement and should have bars delineating it from content that say "Sponsored Post."
Sorry for the confusion, it's not our intention to trick you with advertorial, but to create advertising that is compelling to you as a reader that you actually *want* to read it. But we'll *always* tell you when it's been paid for.
Sorry for the confusion, it's not our intention to trick you with advertorial, but to create advertising that is compelling to you as a reader that you actually *want* to read it. But we'll *always* tell you when it's been paid for.
@Richard Lawson: Thank you!
I wish I had a tally sheet of all the advertisers we've lost because editors have trashed their products vs the number of times an advertiser is fortunate enough to be representing a product that is worthy of editorial praise.
I promise, editors have pissed of far more than they've pleased over the years.
And yet, we love them for it. Keeps us honest.
I wish I had a tally sheet of all the advertisers we've lost because editors have trashed their products vs the number of times an advertiser is fortunate enough to be representing a product that is worthy of editorial praise.
I promise, editors have pissed of far more than they've pleased over the years.
And yet, we love them for it. Keeps us honest.
@mwynn13: We still do. This post wasn't paid for. This post was: [jezebel.com]
@halfbaked: Firstly, newspapers run advertisements for films right next to reviews (positive and negative) all the time. Do you write a letter to the Times every time a positive review shows up near an ad for the same movie? No, you don't.
Secondly, if we in the sales department managed to conspire with editorial for positive treatment of our advertisers, we wouldn't have to do our own posts, clearly labeled sponsored, like this: [jezebel.com]
I know from personal experience that if these guys hated this movie, they would have posted that too. If an advertiser pays for something, we say so (see: sponsored posts, gift guides, contests). It's ridiculous that you'd even think we'd work any other way.
Secondly, if we in the sales department managed to conspire with editorial for positive treatment of our advertisers, we wouldn't have to do our own posts, clearly labeled sponsored, like this: [jezebel.com]
I know from personal experience that if these guys hated this movie, they would have posted that too. If an advertiser pays for something, we say so (see: sponsored posts, gift guides, contests). It's ridiculous that you'd even think we'd work any other way.
Extremely well written, and I happen to agree in theory.
But, playing devil's advocate here...
If the TSA were to develop such policies based off of data (screening every 10th person, for example), would we want that information public? Wouldn't the publishing of that information--though assuaging the fear of privacy invasion and profiling--ultimately work to make us less safe?
I'm not saying I disagree with the points made here, because I don't. But I do think there's some efficiency in the seemingly random and "poorly trained" nature of the TSA.
Suppose, for one second, that you weren't just a curious traveler, but a contraband carrying terrorist. The level of anxiety you would have experienced going through a security checkpoint and being singled out should be pretty intense, and hopefully noticeable by one of the various agents (darting eyes, looking down, profuse sweating, fast breathing, stammered words, etc). So while a cursory pat down looking for weapons on the soles of your feet would turn up nothing, perhaps your actions would have been different throughout if you were truly a threat, and you would have (hopefully) been subject to additional questioning in that case.
What I'm trying to say is...a terrorist wouldn't politely ask if they are allowed to decline a search. I appreciate what you were trying to do, but the more people who try to protest these otherwise reasonable searches and spend time trying to figure out how the system works, the less safe we actually become.
In my opinion, of course.
But, playing devil's advocate here...
If the TSA were to develop such policies based off of data (screening every 10th person, for example), would we want that information public? Wouldn't the publishing of that information--though assuaging the fear of privacy invasion and profiling--ultimately work to make us less safe?
I'm not saying I disagree with the points made here, because I don't. But I do think there's some efficiency in the seemingly random and "poorly trained" nature of the TSA.
Suppose, for one second, that you weren't just a curious traveler, but a contraband carrying terrorist. The level of anxiety you would have experienced going through a security checkpoint and being singled out should be pretty intense, and hopefully noticeable by one of the various agents (darting eyes, looking down, profuse sweating, fast breathing, stammered words, etc). So while a cursory pat down looking for weapons on the soles of your feet would turn up nothing, perhaps your actions would have been different throughout if you were truly a threat, and you would have (hopefully) been subject to additional questioning in that case.
What I'm trying to say is...a terrorist wouldn't politely ask if they are allowed to decline a search. I appreciate what you were trying to do, but the more people who try to protest these otherwise reasonable searches and spend time trying to figure out how the system works, the less safe we actually become.
In my opinion, of course.
