Commentary is one of the best voyeurs into the true public interest. Therefore commenting on something may not just be a thing for humor, but one for deeper thought or meaning. Pullitzer Prizes may not be awarded for witty quips on articles regarding Madonna and A-Rod's latest Kaballah debacle but surely the out of touch old guard of publishing is in need of a wake up call. The internet is here to stay. With the death of print, one day these well known prizes could be given out via hollagram and not in an elitist ceremony run by the same families that have been writing our American History for the past 100 years.
@sarcasticmeow: See I actually find commentary can be misleading. It just amplifies the extremes and doesn't give a good sense of the real spread of opinion.
I still totes devour it though. Peeps can be funnnaaaaay.
"It also requires a thoroughly snobbish definition of "public interest," which does not have much to do with what the public is actually interested in."
I'm going to be a prick now, but this is a willfully dishonest definition of "the public interest" that has previously been trumpeted Fox News. I think you know better, and I'm sure you were just trying to score ha-has, but this just grates.
@Sproing: Yes. Exactly. Unfortunately this is something that Gawker does quite a bit, conflating the bad business model of old media with bad journalism.
04/20/09
12/09/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/09/08
I still totes devour it though. Peeps can be funnnaaaaay.
12/08/08
I'm going to be a prick now, but this is a willfully dishonest definition of "the public interest" that has previously been trumpeted Fox News. I think you know better, and I'm sure you were just trying to score ha-has, but this just grates.
[mediamatters.org]
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
And God help us all if they start giving awards for what the public is actually interested in. I mean that.
12/08/08
12/08/08