Enter your username and password.
New York, 12:14 PM
Fri Nov 27
11 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
Please enter your email address to have your password reset.
Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.
Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.
You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.
See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.
11/24/09
[www.sfgate.com]
11/23/09
11/23/09
Their slogan: We're totlly clueless but look great on TV.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
what caused the break up with the getty family?
11/24/09
11/24/09
[www.sfgate.com]
11/24/09
#tips
11/24/09
#tips
11/24/09
thanks for the replies.
restating the obvious: family and money - deadly combo
11/24/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/24/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
Our own Dear Mayor jets off to his houses in the Carribean and London for days at a time every month, fiercely tells reporters his 4 day weekends are none of the press's business. There's no story here, and I look forward to the next SF mayor where the bitching will begin all over again, whomever it is.
11/23/09
11/23/09
I don't know what ill will people from SF do (or don't) harbor for Newsom, but I gotta say, I feel sorry for him after seeing this. The interviewer clearly knew he was digging for something beyond the public interest here. And I think it's a savvy move on Newsom's part. Give the media blueballs and then get all the empty questions out of the way in a single interview, instead of answering inane questions about "how it feels to lose" for months. As awkward as it might seem, he probably "won" this moment, because it turns out there's nothing particularly suspicious about his absence (or even "absent" about his absence, really), and he's made it clear that he won't deal with any more questions about it.
11/23/09
So why would the press latch on to this non-story? I don't know the details, but it seems like a great way to get Newsom's attention (and let him know we are certainly paying attention to him).
It might not mean much to someone who doesn't live in SF, but there's zero leadership right now.
11/23/09
11/24/09
I think it's funny that you downplay the power of myth in the public eye. How do you think Newsom got elected in the first place?
11/24/09
Yes, you're correct. This is "how it works" with the media. Sure. But there's a difference between noting how the system functions, and making justifications for it functioning that way. I'm not denying that the media works this way. I'm criticizing those who think that this reality is its own justification.
10/05/09
Love it - so if she was just pregnant, or just married, go for it! But pregnant and married, whoa, slow down...
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09