Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 2:57 AM
Sat Dec 19
47 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |
Media:
Hamilton Nolan |
Politics:
Alex Pareene |
Investigations:
John Cook |
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |
Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |
Weekends:
Foster Kamer |
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/20/09
11/18/09
11/19/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
It's actually -ink.- And it's not a squid, it's an octopus.
11/18/09
Some say that calamari is Italian slang for mafia. Yes? Verifiable?
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
[upload.wikimedia.org]
11/18/09
I think we can let Taibbi off the hook, but God is on notice for actually creating something that should not be seen outside my nightmares.
11/19/09
11/18/09
The image was also used to denounce Standard Oil back in the day.
11/18/09
11/18/09
@Adrian Chen: There are even more!
#tips
11/18/09
08/31/09
OK, I take that back... RollingStone.com did used to have the most readily available copy of the "Imagine" video before YouTube and I've pointed toward it numerous times, but I really don't think I'd like it, if the website were to try and replace the magazine. As with all my subscriptions, but especially Rolling Stone, I actually look forward to getting my hard copy in the mail and have a ritual about reading it.
US Weekly is just a gossip rag and it's understandable that they have better traffic; their competition is online, there's lots of blogs linking to gossip and the text is just a lot of blurbs. Rolling Stone, Playboy, Vanity Fair, etc are lifestyle publications; They have devoted readerships, long-form articles and all of their websites are suffering online.
08/31/09
IOW: Like pretty much everyone else, I read almost every word of every Rolling Stone, but we're not going to do that online. No amount of "engagement" is going to change this fact and unless the "engagement" is going to be separate animal, disconnected from the offline content, then I don't see a reason for them to worry too much more than their stated goal of bringing site management in-house.
Online ads don't pay as well as offline and though there's been a noticable advertising slump (not as many fashion ads), I'm sure the offline situation is temporary and an ad-free Twitter feed isn't going to add anything toward the bottom line.
08/30/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
09/01/09
08/30/09
I can take the Beatles cover even if the article is rehashing the same bullshit, it primarily takes from John's interview when he was out of his head on smack and angry. I love how the author completely ignores the fact that John in later years said he lied through his teeth during that interview.
Plus, it would be nice if R.S. would for once focus on the fact that John and Paul made up, but I guess hating each other is better copy.
The Rolling Stone website is a mess. I think one of the most ridiculous things is that Rolling Stone a MUSIC MAGAZINE rarely if ever breaks new music news. It's pathetic that People Magazine can beat them to the punch.
08/31/09
[www.observer.com]
Another huge newsstand issue this year? The Adam Lambert coming-out issue.
And again, RS *does* break music news. (Like the aforementioned Adam Lambert story -- which was probably one of the biggest non-death music-related stories this year as far as garnering public interest.) But a) music is pretty sprawling, probably much more so than any other popular art form, which guarantees that any news it breaks won't be of vital importance to everyone; and b) music news is rarely important enough to a wide swath of the populace to warrant being "broken."