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.

Mitchel Stevens’ Guide to Employment and Liveblogs

Editor's Note: The following column is part of an anonymous weekly humor column chronicling the struggle of a new, young journalist out in the working world. You may find the author's previous posts in the archives. --The Ed.

Hey gang. A funny thing happened on the way to the Internet today. It turns out that New York magazine ran a little feature this week on a certain lil’ snarky weblog-that-begat-all-blogs: Gawker (proper.)

Traditionally, this sort of “eye on the media” is left to The Editorialiste since this is what he goes to school for. However, we had a brief discussion and realized that this is in fact my area of expertise. You may say, “But Mitchel! How do you do media analysis, aside from poorly?”

And I say, “But reader! This revenge-feature is totally focusing on the common man affected and thus empowered by new media — eye ee, me, Mitchel Stevens. Do you see what I did there?”

And so, perhaps in homage to another great mind of our times, I have decided to liveblog my reading off New York magazine’s latest feature, “Gawker and the Rage of the Creative Underclass.”

7:00 a.m.: Wake up. Mouth tastes like gin, again. Fuck. Promised self I wouldn’t do that on a Sunday night anymore. It’s not the good gin, either, but the shitty type that comes in the same bottle as the good stuff. Fuck. Head hurts.

7:30 a.m.: Wake up again after falling back to sleep. Mouth tastes like cigarettes, gin and ass. Ugh.

8:00 a.m.: Finally get out of bed.

8:05 a.m.: Do morning online job. Open Gmail.

8:06 a.m.: Open link to New York magazine piece.

8:08 a.m.: Wait, aren’t I the “creative underclass?”

8:10 a.m.: Jesus Christ, Vanessa “GRIG” Grigoriadis is a whiny person. I once worked as a researcher for her. Like talking to an early morning stoner.

---
SAMPLE:

MS: So, what are you looking for?

VG: Ok, so I need the stuff no one else knows.

MS: Ok.

VG: Seriously, the kind of things no one checks for.

MS: Ok.

VG: Stuff on message boards, on MySpace pages. If it’s on there, I need it.

MS: Ok. So mainly the Internet stuff.

VG: Yeah.

MS: Ok, got it.

3 DAYS LATER…

VG: Why did you forward me all these MySpace pages?

MS: You wanted the MySpace stuff.

VG: I already know this. God, listen, I need stuff from the MySpace pages that people don’t know about. I need the real stuff.

MS: …like?

VG: You know, the underground.

---

Right. OK, back to liveblogging.

8:12 a.m.: This entire opening is a disclosure about how THE GRIG was burned by Gawker and had to explain to her mother-in-law what a blog was? WTF.

8:13 a.m.: Maybe she forgot about how she exploited her husband’s own weight for a story. Hm, I wonder if her mother-in-law Googled that. (Totes via Gawker).

8:15 a.m.: “Like most journalists, I tend to have a defeatist attitude about Gawker, dismissing it as the Mystery Science Theater 3000 of journalism,” in the not too distant future, about 2007 A.D., there was a shitty trend piece, about bloggers like you and me….LA LA LA.

8:20 a.m.: blah blah blah, Gawker once was written by someone else... "Sicha, a handsome ex-gallerist who spends his downtime gardening on Fire Island, is generally warm and even-tempered, but on this last point, he looks truly disgusted. ‘Not a week goes by I don’t want to quit this job,” he says, “because staring at New York this way makes me sick.’” Ooh! How daring! Next week in New York magazine, people dislike their jobs! Followed the week after by: “My Husband Isn’t Fat Anymore and DON’T YOU GOOGLE HIM!!!!!” (By Vanessa Grigoriadis).

8:21 a.m.: Make coffee.

8:34 a.m.: Page two of the online article has Emily “Hey, guise, totally edgy since I give the middle fi—LOOK AT MY BREASTS. I AM NEEDY” Gould, Choire Sicha and Julia Allison. Is it bad I mock Emily? Shit, now I really feel bad. Because she’s moody, guys. Working is hard. Fuck. I feel bad. Sorry, Emily. I mean, I don’t mean to be bitchy. Your work is tough, I know. I freelance too. And blah blah, Josh made fun of Neal Pollack’s kid. Whatever, it takes a proud iPhone clad douche to knock on a little kid. But I really feel like a prick. I know the rooftop photoshoot was probably after days of convincing by Nikola “Teh L Magazine Greatest Photog” Tamindzic. And omg, all you ever knew how to do was write! Me too! Oh, man, I think we’d totally be friends. Do you notice how THE GRIG is making you out to be the human side of OMG GAWKER because you are the soulful one, Em. You’re totes the human side.

And you know, fuck Jimmy Kimmel fo…wait.

Wait.

Hold the fuck on.

9:20 a.m.: No, wait, it’s still there. You make $55,000 a year? Seriously. You make $55,000 a year, wrote a book and are complaining that you have to work? I understand you have to pay freelancer’s taxes. I know what that is. I get receipts every time I buy a MetroCard.

But you are COMPLAINING about making that much money? What the fuck? You’re like every other punk kid I knew: oh boo hoo, life is hard—except for this shit-load amount of money I make! Oh, life is hard! I need to go have appetizers at a classy restaurant! Life is pain! I need to have a Pink Panty Dropper.

9:24 a.m.: Seriously. WTF. Why don’t you complain about your job more.

9:26 a.m.: Yeah, Denton looks like Morrissey. Speaking of, why hasn’t Gawker posted about this yet?

9:30 a.m.: I’m on page 3 of the online article. What does this article have to do with the “creative underclass?” So far, this has been about THE GRIG being pissed her mother-in-law googled her son and blames THE GRIG. Not to mention—and I skipped ahead here—that THE GRIG made friends with Emily Gould and loves Choire Sicha’s sexy underwear. Well, we all love Choire’s underwear. It’s what we see when we “apply” for work at Gawker. Whatever.

But this article? It’s a pity. This is the prime example of old media trying attack online. Especially when online outlets such as this—and especially with the reasoning that Alex Balk didn’t mean to leave for Radar magazine, but was forced to leave regarding a post me made—show that online is indeed better.

Shit, I give up on this whole “liveblogging” thing. I can’t stomach THE GRIG’s story, nor how she attempts to humanize poor Emily as the scarred, lonely little girl in a big scary man’s second life. Maybe THE GRIG forgot that most people in media make below $28 K when it comes to work. After all, how much did she make for this corporate blowjob? Maybe she cut off some cash for her tubby hubby.

It should be no surprise that Gawker has yet to comment on the article that cites some in the office are drug users or like to have sex. What a shock! At least we know one thing—Richard Blakely, one of Gawker’s videographers, doesn’t wear tight white pants. Right, Alex Goldberg?

But I digress. I tried to get in contact* with the kids at Gawker in the interest of journalism and integrity and web 2.0. Sadly, no amount of uppers, downers or gin could attract Sicha, the guy with a Serge Gainsborough tat or Lil’ Miss “I make 55 K. SO DEPRESSING. WAAAAAAAAMBULANCE.”

Sigh. Anyway, the Gawker kids haven’t even discussed the piece on their site yet. So far it was just “omg, alex pareene is here. Omg, these things are going on. Omg, we are not going to acknowledge the 500-lb pink elephant in the room. Omg, CMJ is so totally for young people!”

Oh, Gawker. You’re so adorable. Like a $55,000 worth of adorable. But not nearly as adorable as how tubby THE GRIG’s husband is.

-MS

*Note: Mitchel Stevens did not try at all to talk to the editors at Gawker. In fact, he sort of just played Bona Drag for an hour, drank some gin and then sat around refreshing his Gmail while googling himself. Mitchel Stevens really didn’t feel inspired this time. Mitchel Stevens wants breakfast.

Newspapers Isolate Blogs, Readers

It's a new week here on The Editorialiste, but I'm still catching up to old -- but important -- news on the MSM/citizen journalism front.

One recent tidbit that really struck me was when Gawker's Choire Sicha (Choire, say hi to my old classmate Pareene for me) called out newspapers for sectioning off their blogs as a separate section and then expecting readers to want to read them. He writes in "The New Model: Newspapers Now Stuffed Full Of Blogs, But No Clue Where To Put Them":

"They're organizing by form, not by content. Readers just don't come to a newspaper's website looking for a messy passel of blogs. They come looking for sports, or fashion, no matter what 'form' it's in."

Because of this problem, most blog writers on newspaper sites end up giving their sermons to an empty house, he wrote -- and readers are at a loss for where to find 'em in the first place.

Just last week, I spoke with Philly.com President Eric Grilly, who was kind enough to give me a ring after my recent critique of the site's newest version. We spoke of many things pertaining to the site -- Grilly's all ears when it comes to ideas for the site, and he was kind enough to accept my full-blown, no-holds-barred critique of the site -- and one that I brought up was exactly Sicha's point: that the site sectioned off "Multimedia" and "Blogs" as a separate entity, without any cross-referencing in the sections they pertained to.

In this case, as in many others on newspaper websites, Philly.com readers looking for Eagles content need to go into two completely different sections to read the latest score and then read an Inquirer staffer's thoughts about it.

This reveals a lot about the new media mindset of the old newspapers: that is, the fact that the "blog" is a "hip," "new" asset to add to the web toolbelt, rather than a different publishing platform for similar content. So instead of integrating the blogs into the sections of the site, they're relegated as their own "look at us, we're so totally web 2.0 with our blogs and out multimedia" (which is really just a slideshow that can be applied to any article with photos attached to it).

So listen up, newspapers: Start asking someone who understands what a blog is and isn't for help in integrating them into your sites. You're already slimming your staff down; why would you waste the work of who's left to the big, empty web void?