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.)

 Reply

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.

 Reply

this isn't an oxymoron...? you can get someone on your edit team to write and/or approve off on someone's advertorial or a custom content guide insert or curated back-article sponsorship or whatever and not have that actually affect what goes into the real editorial content of the magazine.

why is gawker spending this entire week being mystified by what are actually totally standard long-time publishing practices? we fucking did this at science for crying out loud! you guys are crackin me up imo. i'm not saying that you're wrong that it's a real big blurring of the quaint old fashioned church-and-state notion but it's not like vice just invented this thing right now today.

 Reply