apr 7

On Gawker

I've become vaguely confused by what's going on at Gawker lately. The ostensible logic of the chair rearrangement a while back seemed to suggest that The Big G was moving away from insider media reportage (save that noise for the New York Observer!) and shifting toward entertainment coverage (TMZ must be denied!). But this week we've seen long pieces on David Remnick's / Tina Brown's New Yorker and some wacky meta-meta coverage of the NYT Mag Consumed column. As I suggested on Twitter the other day (ugh), Gawker has become almost impossible to read, so I should probably welcome whatever they're doing to mix it up.


WTF? Why am I writing quasi-babble on Gawker? I'm more schizoid than they are.

posted by Rex at 9:08 PM on April 7, 2007

The whole thing seems to be playing to a cast of about a dozen regular commenters now.

posted by Gawked Out at 9:51 PM on April 7, 2007

yes. "impossible to read" is exactly right. the new team was funny when they first arrived, but recently they've slipped down a slope into incomprehensibility.

posted by adm at 10:43 PM on April 7, 2007

The New Yorker piece was fucking great -- I haven't been regularly reading Gawker, but after that well written background info on something I do read regularly, I'm now going to peek back at Gawker a little more frequently.

posted by Taylor at 12:38 PM on April 8, 2007

NOTE: The commenting window has expired for this post.