Gawker Eds Jump Ship Without Life Preservers

Interesting news in digital journalism this week: Three editors at Gawker, the sarcasm-fueled gossip site, announced that they will be leaving the Gawker Media empire. This includes:

• Longtime managing editor and once-editor Choire Sicha;
• Gawker editor Emily Gould;
• and nightlife editor Josh Stein.

Why? Mixed reactions from the group -- some are tired of Gawker, some are tired of a 5-to-9 job and some just want to try something new.

The New York Observer reports that "Maggie Shnayerson, who started on Sept. 24, is now the longest-serving editor at Gawker." And I think that's a pretty interesting indicator as to the challenges Nick Denton and Co. face as a major employer of alternative journalists/editors/publishers/citizens.

Women's Wear Daily reported some chilling facts about an alternative media organization like Gawker: extremely limited upward mobility. Still.

"In my dreams I'm going to find a job reporting on fires," said Sicha. "But I'm a little creaky and old to do that." He added, "I just feel like, now that everyone sort of operates at the speed we do, who's actually going to do the stuff that takes some time or some reading?...Everything has become knee-jerk like we are." In other words, "There can be one TMZ, but if there are going to be eight TMZs, I want out."

Gould struck a similar note. "Whatever Gawker originally set out to do, it kind of did, and now it just feels over," she said. "I would love it if it just fell off the face of the earth....I don't want to say the meanest thing or the most shocking thing possible anymore, because it gets so old and so soul-killing. There is stuff I really care about. I'm not interested in tearing it down as much as describing it."

It's not only subject matter -- after all, the magazine business is known to be a revolving-door-type industry -- but rather there's nowhere to go. Gawker's been adding some lesser positions to it's portfolio of hired help, but for the most part, the people who leave haven't anywhere to aspire to get to. And there aren't exactly any companies quite like Gawker, either.

Why is this important, then? Because it shows that Gawker Media, despite its largesse, is still an alternative. No matter what they pay, or supposed benefits, or what have you, it remains an anomaly. When you're done with Gawker, you're probably done with the independent blog world, at least on the level of success you had at Gawker. Many editors -- say, Jessica Coen or Ana Marie Cox -- went on to MSM, Big-J employers and tried, sort of, to replicate what they were so damn good at on Gawker. But for the MSM-wary, few options remain. Gawker's still the top.

So where does Gawker fit in the grander scheme? It remains to be seen, although I would suggest that it's still a springboard for "bigger," "better," more mainstream media. But until it grows -- or a competitor does -- it's clear that Gawker alums will continue to walk through the revolving door at a rapid pace. Those that don't jump on the MSM bandwagon might just never be heard from again.

'Generation U': Why Time Reporters Just Wrote Their Own Career Obituaries

We're still catching up on important news this week, and one of the more interesting tidbits was a recent Women's Wear Daily report saying that Time Inc. print reporters won't be forced to do online work, thanks to a contract clause proposed by the Newspaper Guild.

Apparently, the two parties reached a tentative agreement for a three-year contract that includes guaranteed annual pay raises, and changes to severance packages and other benefits to Guild-protected employees -- but one of the additions is a stipulation that prevents management from demanding that print reporters must write for the Web.

(The magazines under Guild protection include People, Time, Fortune, Fortune Small Business, Sports Illustrated and Money.)

The Editorialiste asks: Can Time Inc. journalists make a bigger mistake?

As Columbia new media spokesman and writing-for-the-web guru Sree Sreenivasan said to me on Monday, "It's backwards. The guild might be making a mistake."

And I couldn't agree more.

Say what you want about new media, generations of journalists and the decline of printed readership, but it's looking to me as if Time Inc. professionals are swimming against the ever-strengthening stream of progress. But that's the obvious take on the news.

What I really want to know is: How exactly is this supposed to mesh with the 84-year-old flagship magazine's attempt to stay relevant in a 24-hour, wired, online news cycle?

When the flagship magazine slims down and takes contract work over full-time salaries, that sends a message that the time of the cubicle-embedded journalist is nearing an end. So when the journalists themselves turn around and say that they don't want to be a part of this "new movement," are they not hypocritical -- and furthermore, writing their own career obits?

It seems to me that this contract is two steps forward, three steps back. For every guaranteed annual raise and benefits package, each journalist is effectively saying, "Keep me comfortable for the rest of my career here, please, at the expense of the publication and my generation." All Time Inc. seems to have to do is wait it out until each journalist drops dead, phasing out the "resistant generation" and gladly handing the iconic magazine over to a new generation of technophiles for which writing for the web is the norm.

Of course, this will all happen, in say, 20 years -- when doing so will seem old hat and fitting of Time's reputation. But is this really the way to conduct business -- leaving (ironically) time to shape a publication and company?

I don't think so. Time Inc. employees, it's time to wise up -- buy yourself a laptop and a digital camera and learn how to do what the rest of the U.S. already does.

The New York Times' Thomas L. Friedman wrote today about "Generation Q" -- a "quiet" generation of idealistic college students who aren't into political or social activism. I beg the question -- are Time Inc. employees a part of journalism's "Generation U" -- Generation Unplug?