Hm. This partypants character seems like your typical blog-person who wants to work for Gawker or some similar entity, but can't, for any variety of reasons. This frustrates/saddens them, so they decide to hate Gawker (and similar entities) instead. I've seen it dozens of times before partypants, and her personal blog tells this same story in sad, exacting detail.
What I really don't get is being obsessed with internet strangers to the point of spending your time "reblogging" them and just, you know, attacking them at every opportunity. At least the folks at Gawker are a) Good writers b) Funny c) Getting paid to do it. If you're doing this kind of muck pro bono, well... sigh for you. A big ol' sigh for you.
@TallulahSkankhead: There were a couple of good turns of phrase here or there in the posts of hers that I read, but they were overshadowed by the obsessive coverage of the same few subjects and a lotta cheap slams at people's looks.
I dunno. I just don't get some parts of the internet, I guess.
@Richard Lawson: Still, you're sort of shooting the messenger here, and it's disappointing coming from a good writer who I thought was fair. Pro bono? Money makes the snark OK? Lines in the sand.
@TallulahSkankhead: I'm not saying money makes the snark OK (I quit, remember?), I'm just saying I really don't understand engaging in the snark (and low-quality snark at that) for fucking free. It seems crazy.
@o-line: yeah, that link was not classy. They didn't even mention that the article was satiric, leaving readers with the distinct impression that Blakeley is a date rapist.
Someone at HP doesn't like Richard, and are willing to be vicious and underhanded. HP is like a shitty high school newsletter.
@Annoying: He was soliciting ideas for a story. Without seeing the story that resulted, I have no idea whether he was being a dickface, or just pursuing an idea for some really dark humor.
It's news in the blog world, and Gawker should have reported it the minute they heard about it and confirmed it--because Gawker would have been outraged if, say, a Times reporter had been similarly charged and the Times didn't report it. But all of this fact-free back and forth in the comments does no service to journalism or justice, is patently unfair to the people involved in some very personal turmoil, and is damned tiresome at this length. See you on another thread, folks.
Maybe he's guilty, maybe he's not. Commenters should freely demonize/victimize him in the comments as they would any other person involved in a domestic abuse story. However, it's idiotic for people to call Gawker out for not reporting it. They gave the facts here to show they weren't doing a cover-up. Saying anymore would clearly be all sorts of biased and conflict of interesty. Shut up, dumbs.
Kudos to Gawker for erring on the side of transparency. Was it cautious, and untimely? Yes. Was it a horrifically awkward post to write? Probably. But they did it. What more would you like?
I hope the best comes out of the situation. I really do. But for now, can we all collectively move on, and look forward to whichever fuckhead Fox News producer will most likely be stalking poor Richard for a soon to be televised ambush interview? Hang in there Richard.
@Gunsetpark: I'm not going to wade-in down below, but I'll agree with your points and add that because Richard has a relatively high-profile position in new media, I feel it was very appropriate for Gawker to reveal the info and for the post to have been written by the Managing Editor.
The mouthpiece for all of this, "partypants" or Alice Walker Wright, wrote the post on getoffmyinternets. On her blog, she introduces herself with a picture flipping off the camera and the description "a fat angry loser who spends her time trawling the internet for people to make fun of."
She has a "Gawker hates me" link to her profile. There are claims in this thread that she has been banned from commenting, but I see no evidence of it.
She has a link to GuestOfGuest, where Kristian Laliberte recognized her for being such a prolific commenter. That puts her in the company of a repellant social climber who has a reputation for lying and defaming people.
Her posts on getoffmyinternets are generally personal insults directed at everyone and anyone.
In the comments threads here and on Gawker, Walker Wright goes as far as to say that Blakely looks like a murderer and to question his sexuality.
I'm not saying any of this proves or disproves Blakely's innocence. I'm saying that Walker Wright is not credible. He's innocent until proven guilty. Why is Walker Wright trying to leverage the charges into a full-on character assassination? What if they turn out to be false?
@iplaudius: So, let me get this straight. Iplaudius gets promoted, and A STAR, all because he picks on someone he doesn't even know? Come on now....that's not fair.
I understand sticking by your own, but giving stars out to commentors that favor your employees seems kind of wrong.
Don't you think?
And remember, partypants didn't hit anyone, even allegedly. All she did was report on something that is 100% public.
@nikkilove: Obviously, Alice Walker Wright is picking on someone she doesn't know. With no firsthand evidence at all, she writes "I hope everyone is passing this on," and "nobody should get away with this."
Get away with what? If the charges against Richard are false, no one should "get away with" making them. THAT'S not fair.
I don't need to know this person to know that by getting on a high horse and using her site to advocate the spread of unproven charges, she deserves the identical insult she hurls at Richard at the end of her post.
If she has any actual evidence of what happened, she should contact the prosecutors. If not, she should shut up.
@nikkilove: I LOVE Nick Denton. He is the most handsome, sexiest, and most intelligent blog editor that ever stepped foot upon the island of Manhattan.
@Peter Feld: Ok, I get your point. However, aren't you also a NYC media guy? Are you really that objective? I'm a single Mom who lives in LA, and these people really only exist to me on the internet. If I knew them in person, it would most likely be different.
Also, I will assume the police did some investigating in order to determine whether an arrest was warranted. Otherwise, we would see many scorned women looking to use the NYPD as a revenge tactic.
That said, if Richard is proven innocent, I will be first in line to apologize. Truly. If this was anything but what Jessica stated it was, then that would be a true travesty.
@nikkilove: You really are arguing here that innocent people don't get arrested. I'd rethink that. You'll note I didn't say he was innocent. I haven't said her story is false. I wasn't there! But since I'm not on the jury, my objectivity isn't so critical.
I'm just saying that for some blogger with no direct knowledge to advocate spreading charges, to write in a public forum as though guilt is established, and to accuse everyone who doesn't believe the charges of being part of a media cover-up, is sickening.
If you don't attack people for being batterers when you don't have any facts (other than your faith in law enforcement), you won't have to apologize later.
@nikkilove: If you were talking about any human being* other than Nick Denton I would say that your assumption that the promotion & star were a reward for favoring Blakeley was spot on. But this is Nick Denton we're talking about and that's just not how he rolls. More than likely the promotion and the star were a reward for 1. providing more information on the story and 2. stirring shit up in comments, resulting in more mileage for this story.
@Peter Feld: Peter, Peter, Peter. So when PP got a bunch of tips (all from sep. and reliable sources), she should have just ignored the sources?
Also, PP runs a tiny blog with a regular group of commenters. It's not like she was speaking to a Gawker size audience. Gawker decided to link to her post and report on this story.
You need to step outside of your little NYC media circle. You look goofy with those kids, anyway. You're old enough to be their dad!
@kitkatsplash: So your response to my defense of Richard as innocent until proven guilty is a totally unrelated personal swipe. (Not one that I mind particularly, but whatever.)
Now I'm more convinced that the people pursuing Richard here and elsewhere, and complaining about media bias, are just indulging their free-floating resentment of people they don't know. As if it's so awful that there are a bunch of NY new media people who go to parties together.
@Peter Feld: No, I added the personal swipe because I think it's unfair to drag PP through the mud. She got a tons (seriously) UNSOLICITED tips over the last week and you're going to blame her for reporting it? Not only that but it was a blind item until evidence was found of the arrest. Further, she consistently used said it was alleged.
Sure, she said a few provocative things but that's party pants. She never, however, presumed anyone's guilt.
@kitkatsplash: Oh, come on. Quote from the post linked to above:
I hope everyone is passing this on. I don’t care what kind of media darling you are, nobody should get away with this. Nobody who does something like this to someone who cares about them should be off planning self-celebratory blogger parties or taking "check out my ironic moon wolf tee" pics for their blog. No one seems to want to say it, so I will: You’re a scumbag, Richard.
I thought maybe she'd edited the post to remove that or something, but no. Try to be at least somewhat believable in your assertions.
@Peter Feld: This seams to be a pattern with this commenter. When I disputed one of kitkatsplash's stated assertions, the response was a personal swipe as well - something to the effect that I'm a gawker suck-up because I host live-blogs on this site.
The logic appears to be: If you can't win an argument, just lash out with whatever personal insults you can come up with.
I'm glad you aren't reporting this, Mr. Snyder. It shows appropriate management/human resources skills and it is how any media outlet should handle its internal affairs. The nature of the crimes may cloud things somewhat, and it won't be a popular move, but it's the right one. Gawker's editorial mission is not to be an unfiltered arbiter of everything - its subjectivity is a strength. This will probably only confuse journalism students and rage-blinded feminists.
09/14/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
@LeeroySpitzer:
No, no... *this* is Gavrilo Princip. The conflict he started was nothing compared to what we just witnessed on this thread.
09/14/09
09/14/09
Still think this could be a brilliant gambit for the book tour.
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
Still wondering if this whole incident was staged to add some media juice to your book tour. Metalicious.
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
What I really don't get is being obsessed with internet strangers to the point of spending your time "reblogging" them and just, you know, attacking them at every opportunity. At least the folks at Gawker are a) Good writers b) Funny c) Getting paid to do it. If you're doing this kind of muck pro bono, well... sigh for you. A big ol' sigh for you.
09/14/09
09/14/09
I dunno. I just don't get some parts of the internet, I guess.
09/14/09
EXACTLY. Everyone just needs to calm the fuck down.
09/14/09
That is all.
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/14/09
[www.huffingtonpost.com]
The link to the e-mail about date rape is a delightful touch.
09/14/09
Someone at HP doesn't like Richard, and are willing to be vicious and underhanded. HP is like a shitty high school newsletter.
09/14/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
I hope the best comes out of the situation. I really do. But for now, can we all collectively move on, and look forward to whichever fuckhead Fox News producer will most likely be stalking poor Richard for a soon to be televised ambush interview? Hang in there Richard.
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
She has a "Gawker hates me" link to her profile. There are claims in this thread that she has been banned from commenting, but I see no evidence of it.
She has a link to GuestOfGuest, where Kristian Laliberte recognized her for being such a prolific commenter. That puts her in the company of a repellant social climber who has a reputation for lying and defaming people.
Her posts on getoffmyinternets are generally personal insults directed at everyone and anyone.
In the comments threads here and on Gawker, Walker Wright goes as far as to say that Blakely looks like a murderer and to question his sexuality.
I'm not saying any of this proves or disproves Blakely's innocence. I'm saying that Walker Wright is not credible. He's innocent until proven guilty. Why is Walker Wright trying to leverage the charges into a full-on character assassination? What if they turn out to be false?
09/14/09
I understand sticking by your own, but giving stars out to commentors that favor your employees seems kind of wrong.
Don't you think?
And remember, partypants didn't hit anyone, even allegedly. All she did was report on something that is 100% public.
09/14/09
Get away with what? If the charges against Richard are false, no one should "get away with" making them. THAT'S not fair.
I don't need to know this person to know that by getting on a high horse and using her site to advocate the spread of unproven charges, she deserves the identical insult she hurls at Richard at the end of her post.
If she has any actual evidence of what happened, she should contact the prosecutors. If not, she should shut up.
09/14/09
Star please?
09/14/09
Also, I will assume the police did some investigating in order to determine whether an arrest was warranted. Otherwise, we would see many scorned women looking to use the NYPD as a revenge tactic.
That said, if Richard is proven innocent, I will be first in line to apologize. Truly. If this was anything but what Jessica stated it was, then that would be a true travesty.
09/14/09
I'm just saying that for some blogger with no direct knowledge to advocate spreading charges, to write in a public forum as though guilt is established, and to accuse everyone who doesn't believe the charges of being part of a media cover-up, is sickening.
If you don't attack people for being batterers when you don't have any facts (other than your faith in law enforcement), you won't have to apologize later.
09/14/09
*Questionable.
09/14/09
Also, PP runs a tiny blog with a regular group of commenters. It's not like she was speaking to a Gawker size audience. Gawker decided to link to her post and report on this story.
You need to step outside of your little NYC media circle. You look goofy with those kids, anyway. You're old enough to be their dad!
09/14/09
09/14/09
Now I'm more convinced that the people pursuing Richard here and elsewhere, and complaining about media bias, are just indulging their free-floating resentment of people they don't know. As if it's so awful that there are a bunch of NY new media people who go to parties together.
09/14/09
Sure, she said a few provocative things but that's party pants. She never, however, presumed anyone's guilt.
09/14/09
I hope everyone is passing this on. I don’t care what kind of media darling you are, nobody should get away with this. Nobody who does something like this to someone who cares about them should be off planning self-celebratory blogger parties or taking "check out my ironic moon wolf tee" pics for their blog. No one seems to want to say it, so I will: You’re a scumbag, Richard.
I thought maybe she'd edited the post to remove that or something, but no. Try to be at least somewhat believable in your assertions.
09/14/09
This would be a really dumb time and place to woo you, wouldn't it.
09/14/09
The logic appears to be: If you can't win an argument, just lash out with whatever personal insults you can come up with.
09/15/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09