Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 5:21 AM
Mon Nov 23
15 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/21/09
11/20/09
(1) I have lost all respect for you for posting that pic. I'm not going to gain it back unless you address Gawkernation and explain why you did so.
(2) Any woman or man looks 100 years older under their dermatologist's brilliant light and super-magnifying glasses or camera lenses. Those are the conditions under which that photo was taken.
(3) Apologize, you ass. And take the picture down while you are at it.
Love, Registered.
11/20/09
11/20/09
She's so stupid.
Also, she's pretty, and her face does not look like an elephant.
11/20/09
Just for arguments sake, Why is this suddenly different? Because we mostly like Hillary Clinton?
That's fine. But if that's the case, then I'm just thinking that perhaps we should evaluate how we comment on Gawker as a whole, and how the editorial staff presents their imagery.
If the order of the day is consistency then, yeah, a change should be made, but that's the editorial director's decision. Either it all is fair game, or none of it is, because otherwise how do you not make your commentary arbitrary and hypocritical? In the meantime, looks to me that Brian was following a model already set in place. Hard to know when you're crossing the line, when the line is already so faint.
So perhaps our ire on this is misplaced.
11/20/09
This is different because the people you mention are all celebrities who make a living off their looks (more or less). I would be less shocked if this were Brad Pitt, since Hillary is a politician and her looks have nothing to do with her notoriety. Would we expect to see a similar picture of Joe Biden?
If the defense angle is journalistic truth -- as in, this really happened and we're just showing it -- the caption mentioning "flaws" disagrees with this reasoning and highlights the mean-spirited intentions.
And finally, this: [gawker.com] Gawker recently blasted The Huffington Post for doing this to celebrities. But Hillary is somehow fair game?
11/20/09
And, really I think you're splitting hairs about celebrities that "make their living off their looks." Everyone wants to view themselves as intelligent, valuable people despite their outward appearance. So you're saying that it's more hurtful to view and comment on Hillary's "flaws" than Sarah Jessica Parkers' or Madonnas'? and less acceptable to do so? Naw, that doesn't wash. Hilary is a public figure, politician or not. Plain and simple. So her appearance, like any person in the public spotlight will be scrutinized, just like her clothing (pantsuits Gah!) and her political policies. It's all relative. It may not be nice, but, well, that's the cost of being in the public. And if you think it's beyond your taste level to comment, then don't.
All I'm saying is that you can't have two sets of rules. The same rule should apply across the board. Either snarkiness is okay for everyone, or for no one. How else can you reasonably define it? Snark only for their political statements, personal attributes, intelligence, existence as a human being, their family life, religious affiliation, their clothing choices, their pets, careers, like of fancy mustard, or verbiage, but not their appearance, unless we really don't like them, because that would be mean? Not likely.
The whole Huffington Post thing, well, as I said this is also a blog, which means there is a fair amount of opinion mixed in. Apparently, Ryan and Brian are of two minds on this. Contradictory? Perhaps. But maybe that's where the editorial direction piece comes in, and consistency, as I mentioned. Or not. This isn't the New York Times.
11/20/09
This is totally unprovoked, juvenile, and unregenerately sexist. Moreover, the image is exceptionally unflattering, even for Gawker.
So perhaps your equanimity at the gratuitous belittling of an older woman is misplaced.
#Stopjustifyingblatantsexism
11/20/09
"And very much of what is produced here could be considered "mean-spirited" depending on your point of view. "
The snark only succeeds when the subject deserves ridicule. What is ridiculous about Hillary Clinton doing her job?
Oh, but she's a woman and 62. FUNNEE!
Unfortunately, I think you may be so inured to this culture's daily mockery of women that you simply don't see its offensiveness when it's right in front of you.
11/20/09
And how is snark in any of these cases provoked? Did the subjects of said snark target Gawker in some way as an entity first, independently, or did they go about whatever comprises their day, do something they saw as fitting in their world, we then as the public made a judgment about it, and then we decided it was snark worthy? That's what the gist of it is in my view. Who decides it's stupid?
If it's incorrect in one sense than it should be in all senses, right?
And this: Perhaps your equanimity at the gratuitous belittling of an older woman is misplaced. isn't what I'm demonstrating at all, if you were reading. Age and gender has nothing to do with it. That's belittling. That an older formidable woman is too what? fragile, to be snarked upon, like other women who have made appearances on this site who are ten, twenty, thirty years younger and gotten similar treatment?
I'm saying that one rule should apply, whichever way it goes. And if you can't get down with that, then don't participate.
11/20/09
And when discussing Gawker, the word "offensive" seems superfluous, really. So I don't get your meaning.
And honestly some of your sentiments are exactly why I prefer this site to Jezebel, mostly. That it's not sooo woman directed all the time. (Some balance here would be good though.) No offense to Jezebel and what they do.
11/20/09
It's always been my impression that there are boundaries to what you can and cannot express here. They might be fluid and amorphous boundaries, but they do exist. If you transgress them, either as a blogger or as a commenter, corrective action is applied. It works both ways, in a kind of symbiotic, self-corrective manner.
In physics, "entropy" represents the potential for disorder within a system. Think of these sites as a collection of systems with limited degrees of freedom, meant to prevent entropy.
PS: I also never tire of LOL-ing anytime Gawker is equated with "a source of journalism."
11/20/09
The editorial direction can't really be done by the commenters. We're the responders, not the generators. If there are boundaries, however faint, then they should be defined, and adhered to. Or if that's not how things roll here, than that should be stated, and each commenter then makes the decision to participate. But skewering Brian is not the solution. (Maybe it brings to light some new points of discussion at best.) And I'm not pandering to Brian, but questioning the system that is Gawker. Which was my original point.
(Am I repeating myself here?)
11/20/09
Although I don't agree, I do respect your point of view. The reason I usually hang out here instead of Jezebel is that over there they often don't feel obligated to present the other side[s] of the argument. It's far too frequently pure group rant, and if you don't agree, you're Evil.
Acknowledging the existence of opposing points of view and figuring out how to meet them is an important life skill for women.
Rational thought means a lot too me, but not to the point where I'm going to rationalize insults.
Have a nice day (sincerely).
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
Yeah, you too, have a good one.
11/20/09
I'd really like to see a member of the majority (women) be POTUS before I die. I don't think you are female and you cannot understand my rage. It is rage. It's usually quiet and resigned, but deep down, I am angry. Very.
I long for the day when we can discuss female politicians on their policies and not their pantsuits. On their policies and not their wrinkles.
I also hope Brian gets some sense or gets kicked in the balls by a mule.
11/20/09
And I long for a day when we can discuss candidates for the POTUS office without all the gender specific filter gobbledygook. Yes, I hate Hillary's pantsuits. AND I also hate Obama's mom-jeans. That has nothing to do with how either of them would lead the country. Just mere observations. Silly and irrelevant. But so not the reason why I'd pull the lever for either one. And hopefully as a thinking adult I'm allowed to laugh at the laughable, and still make the best decision I feel, as my right, for this country.
So, really, and truthfully, chill.
Listen, I wouldn't have posted that picture of Hillary. Not because she's of a certain age, or because as a woman she's somehow Virgin Mary-like and divine, or because as a woman myself I feel some unquestioned sisterly solidarity with her. I wouldn't have posted it unless to say someone took advantage of her at an obvious unflattering moment. And that's not cool. ( and in doing so, be prepared for every snark filled post about every other woman Gawker has ever covered to be thrown in the Gauntlet. See how this works?) Was Brian out of line. Perhaps. Out of line for this site. Perhaps. Perhaps not. When there is such a huge snark filter this site prides itself on....hard to judge the "okey dokey", from the "Hold up, wait a minute." without a clear indication from the Powers That Be. Your line may be bold and brilliant and bright. Others...may be a little murky. And like I've said, (how many times now?) maybe it's time to take a Sharpie to that thing.
11/20/09
I already have you hearted, not much more I can say.
Except, Brian Moylan, you'd better take that fucking picture down now. You're lucky there is a woman on Gawker who replies to your media comments. Don't count on that continuing.
11/20/09
It's something you don't expect on Gawker and all the more delightful because it is unexpected.
But I remain angry. Time is running out for me to see a woman run this country. You'd better believe I called my best friends and wept with joy when Obama got elected. I don't now anyone who did not, so I guess I hang with the liberals.
But it did not take away my fury that HRC was tossed by the wayside. I'd like to methaporically eviscerate the columnist at the NYT who just could not write enough bad words about her.
I feel like America is stuck 50 years ago in an age when women were supposed to shut up and look good. Why can we have female chancellors of Germany and a whole roster of female politicians in other countries, but here, in this so-called developed nation, a woman as POTUS is still a joke for the likes of Brian?
11/20/09
And about Brian, I have no idea of his political leanings, or if he truly sees Hillary as a joke. Could have just been an unthinking, "slow news moment" of misjudgment on his part. I'm not sure how maniacal and nefarious it was, though. But yes, it was careless to throw that picture up there, with that misnomered "flaws" tag, without realizing how it could be viewed, or the potential impact on the readers. I'm not really trying to defend him per se, but just saying in the context of this site, and what the writers and editors do all day (making stuff snarky), it's seems possible they may at times go on autopilot looking for the verrryyy obvious laugh without understanding the full gravity of how it could be perceived, especially if there’s little direction, and your "good snark" eye has gotten dull. So perhaps you misjudge your audience, and miss the funny mark by about 50 years, and the result is it bombs terribly badly, unintentionally, and lands in a steaming heap on your shoe, and you get a significant rap on the nose because of it. Or simply he’s really a misogynist who’s been outed. ( let’s hope not.)
I'm thinking even if Gawker doesn't say what it thinks regarding its snark ratio, perhaps a lesson has been learned about the growing female demographic on this site, how that affects their editorial coverage, and what's just not fucking funny. And that's all this is about, yes?
11/20/09
11/20/09
@registered: I'm talking in no particular order, women like the Baroness, or Bookish, or Dahle - and I'd better stop right there before I get myself into trouble. (There are lots more.) This pic is for you, Brian.
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
I hearted you, too.
Brian,
One more stunt like this and lots of women (and hopefully some men) are going to skip over your posts. Nick Denton will know what conclusions to draw therefrom.
11/21/09
11/21/09
Also, that is an apostophe you are using without even a beginner's licence. Get over to the side of the road, dear.
Did you take a year off or were you just so boring that I never felt interested enough to comment on one comment of yours? It's hard not to comment when one of those late-comers (the BBDs who keep this site running) has something to say. I'm sorry. You are not relevant as far as I am concerned.
It's okay to attack me. Do not attack the women I want to hear from. Although I don't think for a second that "newcomers" like the Baroness, Bookish, or DahlE need my support. They are already running the asylum, you twit.
11/21/09
I'm not disparaging Bookish, Baroness, or DahleL. You misunderstood. We're cool. And they know it. You insinuated that I was some newbie who didn't know what's what on this site, or who these other women were. And I merely stated a chronological fact, and made inference to a former writer who in my opinion was a lot more offensive than Brian. But perhaps I wasn't clear by not mentioning his name. And I still won't. That's how distasteful he was.
Honestly, until today, I didn't know who you were either, but had no inclination to bring that up. So I could state the same thing to you about your relevancy in my view. Not my style, though. (And let me tell you, if you were smokin up the threads, I'd know.) Regardless, if you're a good, funny, commenter, length of time doesn't matter, whether an old commenter, or new on the scene.
And there's more than enough folks here who know me, are longtime followers (even some you mentioned), and like what I do. 'nuff said on that. No need to defend it.
Not attacking anyone. Not even in the slightest. (My, you're touchy.) And the "I'm going to be a catty girl and start namecalling thing" (really going to overlook the "twit" comment, due to your passion on this subject.) is silly and juvenile, and I don't do Jezebel. So let's not go there. Seriously. You don't want it from me.
So let's leave it at...we're both women, we acknowledge the importance of the female perspective here on this site, we encourage other women commenters, even those we disagree with.
Peace out and good luck. Do well.
11/21/09
Your grammar leaves me at a loss. But may peace be with you and may you never again say to anyone, "Do well."
11/21/09
Yeah, so keep "waxing on, waxing off," yellow belt. You'll get it, Sunshine! I look forward to dueling again when you get there. Thanks!
And remember, fear doesn't exist on this blog. "Strike hard, strike fast, no mercy, sir!" Servicey!
11/20/09
"Oooo! A 62 year old woman has wrinkles! Horrors!"
"Its an unflattering photo of HRC- let all hate on her policies!"
"Lets post this awful picture so we can get a lot of page hits from people getting pissed off in the comments section who will start arguing back and forth!"
Hmmm.
11/20/09
Oh, I see. Gosh, look how UGLY she is! Ewww! And who cares what she was saying, of course.
So will you be giving us similar treats with male politicians? Or is this just for women-haters?
11/20/09
You were wrong to do this. So wrong. I don't think you can ever be right again. I loved your blogs on Defamer, but THIS IS TOO MUCH. Count me out of your fan base. You total bastard.
11/20/09
11/20/09
Being an unappointed apologist/flack doesn't suit you well, my friend.
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
It looks like a lonely job.
You're also painting young, gay men with a very broad brush.
Plus, you don't know Brian or the things he disdains.
Look, there is no reason for this post other than the maelstrom he has wrought by posting it in the first place.
*I, for one, usually dig reading your comments.
11/20/09
11/20/09
*air kiss*
11/20/09
11/20/09
I couldn't belive what was happening. Is that enough?
11/20/09
Hey you - keep talking, For good.
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
#tips
11/19/09
Isn't Sarah Palin pretty attractive? How's that working out?
11/19/09
In the end, you have no shame sir. You just took one of the most powerful women in the world and you made her an object of ridicule because of how she looks.
Brian, you make me sick.
11/20/09
Agreed, this was cheap-shot city.
11/19/09
11/19/09
Congratulations!! It worked.
Regardless, the commenters will play Salome to your John the Baptist.
Nick can be Herod.
11/19/09
11/06/09
11/06/09