First they fired Froomkin and now they're selling--let's just be honest--favorable coverage in their newspaper to insurance and pharmaceutical companies on the eve of the big health care reform debate?
What's next? Somali pirates driving the delivery trucks? A Lydon Larouche column?
Part of reading and enjoying Vice is learning to put up with all its weird self-contradictions and hypocrisies. It's kind of like hanging around with an addict in that way.
I find the backlash against Bloodcopy fascinating, I really do. Gawker has always danced the dance of the devil, attempting to be an interesting and unique blog with distinct voices while also being PROFITABLE. And they've always played with hypocrisy... seriously, the burn-baby-burn attitude towards print is eternal, and obviously enjoyable to the readers who seem to now be pissed off that Gawker is attempting to find a way to stay solvent in a new age. And the editorial staff truly does seem separated from ad games like 'Bloodcopy'... hell, I'm seeing little signs that they're not overly impressed themselves.
Or perhaps they're just sick of the whining. Understandably.
Why is it so important that blogs be seen as the scrappy, independent outsider?
If this, and Twitter's new show, is pissing people off, I would recommend those people get off the interwebs somewhere about now, or adjust. Because the future? This is it.
(however - counter-argument! - it does make posts like this a bit more blatant than usual in their hypocrisy, a bit of 'hi, here's my glass house! I haz painted target!'... if there was some nudge-nudge-wink-wink in it's coverage, I think amusement would be higher, indignation lower. This is a pretty scathing snippet of a similar issue to what you're now dealing with, Mr. Nolan, what with all blow-jobbin' and whippets.)
1. This is Vice. They are the voice of the cool rebellious youth blah blah. That's relevant.
2. No matter where you are, you can't have your editorial staff work on AD CAMPAIGNS and still claim they're independent.
3. Direct all complaints about "Blood Copy" to nick@gawker.com. We, the Gawker editorial staff, don't have anything to do with it, because we are "independent" in the traditional sense.
Oh and Hamilton, can you maybe break down the impenetrable barrier between you and Gawker ad sales, and ask them about the story of Gizmodo's "Trek Yourself" ad?
07/06/09
07/06/09
07/06/09
07/06/09
07/06/09
07/02/09
07/02/09
What's next? Somali pirates driving the delivery trucks? A Lydon Larouche column?
07/02/09
07/02/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
Or perhaps they're just sick of the whining. Understandably.
Why is it so important that blogs be seen as the scrappy, independent outsider?
If this, and Twitter's new show, is pissing people off, I would recommend those people get off the interwebs somewhere about now, or adjust. Because the future? This is it.
(however - counter-argument! - it does make posts like this a bit more blatant than usual in their hypocrisy, a bit of 'hi, here's my glass house! I haz painted target!'... if there was some nudge-nudge-wink-wink in it's coverage, I think amusement would be higher, indignation lower. This is a pretty scathing snippet of a similar issue to what you're now dealing with, Mr. Nolan, what with all blow-jobbin' and whippets.)
05/28/09
05/28/09
2. No matter where you are, you can't have your editorial staff work on AD CAMPAIGNS and still claim they're independent.
3. Direct all complaints about "Blood Copy" to nick@gawker.com. We, the Gawker editorial staff, don't have anything to do with it, because we are "independent" in the traditional sense.
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09