— I have been obsessed with the meltdown going on at Gawker. As with most things at Gawker, it may only be of interest to people from the media who have been obsessed with what is going on, on a minute-to-minute basis. I’ve been a Gawker reader from its earliest days. I was part of the world they reported on, all things NYC media. On one memorable day, the employees at the website I worked for learned that there were going to be gigantic layoffs at our company from Gawker – we heard it on Gawker first, before we got the word from the higher-ups. This was classic Gawker. The Gawker post read something like, “We hear that people at [such-and-such-website] are not going to be happy in about an hour.” We all had Gawker up on our computers, as we usually did back in those days, and there was a rustle of alarm that flowed through the cubicles. We all whispered conspiratorially. An hour? What the hell? That soon?? We had felt something coming. Then – right on schedule – came the email from the CEO: “Could everyone please gather in the conference room? All hands on deck for a company meeting.” Someone had clearly leaked the upcoming catastrophe to Gawker. Being afraid of stuff appearing on Gawker influences firing practices, severance packages. (I made the cut, by the way. I would be laid off the following year, but I survived that round.) Gawker has changed a lot over the years, but I do like a lot of their stuff. The piece that caused the meltdown, though, was despicable. Indefensible. And watching the whole thing crumble so definitively has been quite a spectacle. It’s not over yet, but anyway, I’ve been riveted. And the comments over there at Gawker! The regular commenters turning on the website with articulate outrage (for the most part, it’s articulate)! It gives me hope for humanity to see the sheer amount of outrage and sharp moral compasses on display. Go, us.
— I’ve also been obsessed with Pedro Martinez’s induction into the Hall of Fame. He was the greatest Red Sox pitcher in my lifetime, and I was fortunate enough to get to see him in action, live, a couple of times. It was a thrill. Surviving Grady, a wonderful Red Sox blog I’ve been reading for years, has a wonderful post about Martinez’s extraordinary gift and career. “His mastery was so immense, so otherworldly, you were transfixed by it.”
— Paul Theroux’s wonderful review of the new collection of writing by the great Shirley Jackson. I love his crankiness. You can see it in the opening paragraph. Have you read his travel books? He has to be the crankiest travel writer alive, filled with judgment and sneers about the places he visits, and he’s unrepentant and hilarious. I cannot wait to read this new Jackson collection. Much of it has never been published before!
— Slowly making my way through Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism
— The Third Man has been on my mind recently, having gone to see it with Charlie at its theatrical run at the Film Forum. It was my first time seeing it on the big screen, and it was breath-takingly beautiful and dark, projected large. Also, the audience was riveted and silent. My experience at the Film Forum with old films has been up-and-down. I walked out of High Noon because the audience treated it like an episode of Mystery Science Theatre. I included Harry Lime in the recent list I participated in, 50 Greatest Film Characters. Harry Lime should be on any list of this nature. I wanted to point you to Kim Morgan’s beautiful 2010 essay on The Third Man.
— At long last, I am reading William James’ classic philosophical/theological study The Varieties of Religious Experience
— Norman Rush has a new book out! He’s only written three novels, and one collection of short stories, and I believe he is about 81 right now, so … you know. We take what we can get. Subtle Bodies
— Wesley Morris’ Grantland piece on Magic Mike XXL is right on the money. I saw it for a third time with my sister on vacation. The film gets better with repetition. Morris gets into it, analyzing what works, and also mentioning how radical it is, not just in its prioritizing of female pleasure and men willing to do whatever it takes to put a smile on women’s faces, and not only the sheer casual level of inclusiveness built into the wacky adventures (races, body types, sexual orientations, ages, all thrown into a big pot), but also, on a technical level, the structure of the film. It’s really a “and then this happened and then this happened and then this happened” film, completely unlike the original. This new film veers off-course, got rid of the melancholy surrounding stripping as a dead-end life, and embraced the joy. It shouldn’t work. It does. It is a miracle of working. You can’t believe it. Morris’ piece is well worth your time. He really really gets it.
The Gawker thing confuses me. On one hand, apparently advertisers are trying to stifle content, which is bad; on the other, I can’t imagine why G. ran that piece in the first place. When it first appeared, just before the dustup, I didn’t read it, because it was None of My Business.
Jincy – // on the other, I can’t imagine why G. ran that piece in the first place. //
Yeah, that’s the thing, right? What on earth was the point of that story.
Gawker has done some pretty mean stuff in the past – but at some point (in my opinion) there IS a line, and they clearly crossed over it.
What were they thinking? I have to believe it has something to do with the Conde Nast connection, since they are currently trying to destroy Reddit (owned by Conde Nast) – but that is sleazy sleazy sleazy.
Taking down the hypocritical is one thing. Destroying some random guy’s life – for why? – is another.
And the non-apologies. And the staff “standing by the article” – are you guys fucking kidding me? One of my friends was like, “This is why we don’t let children run businesses. Where are the grown-ups?” The “grown-ups” didn’t fare much better.
Also, there’s a strong whiff of homophobia about the whole thing. Or, as my friend Farran said – how newspapers used to list the names of the men arrested for solicitation. Men committed suicide because of that shit. This is in the same vein. It is Not our Business if one guy decides to be “out” or not. It is TOTALLY our business if that guy tries to attack gay marriage, preaches homophobia, or supports homophobia in any way. Then, of course, take those people DOWN. But some random guy? Who didn’t even go through with his experience since he got spooked? Because he was being blackmailed. And then Gawker aids in the blackmail. So gross.
and that bitch from Jezebel tweeting in support: “If it’s true, publish.”
This is what happens when writers with no sense of history, who have never heard of the HUAC, who do not know what they are doing, are given the keys to the castle.
I am far too into all of this. I’m not even involved.
Perfect, Sheila. And thanks–that helps me understand the issue. I mean, I did know that what they did was both cruel (which is sometimes justified) and unjustified; this wasn’t a Wide Stance issue, where it’s permissible to embarrass somebody who’s fomenting discrimination against a practice they secretly enjoy themselves. Your “no sense of history” nails it. It sounds like these people are making a fetish out of the truth. Of course we mustn’t lie, but that’s a separate issue.
I spend a lot of time (too much) reading on the Internet, and it’s so easy to forget that many–probably most–online writers, including the best, are a lot younger than I am. I keep assuming they remember what I remember. Hypocrisy is the first sin most children understand, because everybody, at one time or another, can be caught doing one thing and saying the opposite, behaving one way in private and another in public. Hypocrisy gives the child his first taste of righteous indignation. Then, with luck, the child grows up and gets over it. These writers haven’t done that yet.
// Hypocrisy is the first sin most children understand, because everybody, at one time or another, can be caught doing one thing and saying the opposite, behaving one way in private and another in public. Hypocrisy gives the child his first taste of righteous indignation. Then, with luck, the child grows up and gets over it. These writers haven’t done that yet. //
I think that’s really insightful.
Truth, at what cost? We’re all hypocrites in some way. I am not the same in my apartment as I am out in the world. None of us are. Come on. This guy did not deserve ANY of this. I hope he sues. He has a great case.
Sheila, I have fuck-all to do with media and I can’t look away from that Gawker mess either! But I’ve been reading since Elizabeth Spiers helmed it, so maybe that’s partly why. On the story itself, I can’t top your summation. So sleazy and hateful and just not at all necessary. Nothing Tommy said in defense of their running it swayed me a jot on that. They simply should never have run it. I don’t buy Denton’s sudden attack of principles, either–that email of his calling himself a “truth absolutist” okay with outing transgender people was every bit as gross. But I’ve always thought his scruples were born of convenience and/or profit motive.
Maybe that’s part of why the editors felt they had to make a stand, but like so many commenters have said–THIS is the hill you want to die on? This fellow wasn’t bothering anyone; I had no idea who he was until this blew up and I still don’t care who he is or what he does–only, I hope he’s doing okay. I hope he’s taking a little heart from the outrage and disgust at how he was treated.
// I don’t buy Denton’s sudden attack of principles, either–that email of his calling himself a “truth absolutist” okay with outing transgender people was every bit as gross. //
I know. And the homophobia of his obsession with “outing” people (yes, I know he’s gay) is starting to feel very out-dated. Not to mention prudish and fanatical. Andrew O’heir wrote a fantastic piece in Salon about this – http://www.salon.com/2015/07/25/et_tu_gawker_nick_dentons_tabloid_rebel_empire_faces_full_meltdown/
My favorite quote from it is:
That’s exactly right. There was NO reason to print that story. What, you’re suddenly protecting the sanctity of marriage now or something? The reason an “outing” story works is when the person being outed is a blatant hypocrite who uses his public platform to shame/criminalize gay people. This guy did not qualify. So all this shrill “he was cheating on his wife” stuff was just horse shit. Maybe he was bi. Maybe his wife knew. Maybe he was cheating. Who the hell cares.
// I hope he’s doing okay. //
Me too. I am also glad that every other outlet covering this story has refused to use his name. I mean, the Internet is forever – but still, I am glad of that gesture for this poor guy who really did nothing wrong.
Yes! Without that it’s just graffiti on a bathroom wall: Ugly enough in an eighth-grade restroom, but reprehensible to leave up on a wall the size of Gawker’s. My mind remains blown that two people could see Nick of-all-people Denton getting out the scrub brush and not immediately conclude that they goofed.
The Salon piece is great. I hope Craggs and Read notice something particularly in it: O’Hehir is (all things considered) able to be kind to them, even now. It’s got to be a mindbender to work for Gawker; young people do sometimes make grievous judgment errors; the company did make its bones on this kind of thing, and yada yada yada. But for all that he doesn’t pull any punches. The censorious old biddy shoe fits.
It’s amazing because the Gawker writers pride themselves on openness and transparency and all that. But they are too young and prideful to see that they are wrong in this case. As you said – they picked the wrong hill to die on.
As far as The Third Man goes, as much as I appreciate the way it was shot and that crazy stringed instrument we hear throughout the movie, to me the best thing is the whole Graham Green-ness of the thing. I know it was never a novel but it’s really about as close to a novel that a screenplay can be that I’ve seen anyway. I wish I had the chance to see it on the big screen.
// to me the best thing is the whole Graham Green-ness of the thing. //
Yes!! I love how Kim goes into that in her piece. That whole decadent-Europe thing, and the sheer paranoia of it all – so Greene-ish.
By the way, on Twitter I follow TCM and something called next on TCM which obviously lets you know what’s coming up along with a brief description. Here’s how they previewed The Third Man :
@NextOnTCM: A mad zither player follows an American throughout Vienna as he searches for a missing friend. #TCM
I was like I’ve never heard it described that way but it’s accurate.
hahahahahaha
That article by Paul Theroux is hilarious. I agree with you – there is nothing better than an unrepentant crank with a public platform to deliver their rants. And a new collection of Shirley Jackson? I have got to check this out. Sometimes I forgot her stories were written in the 40s. Such the antithesis of a happy optimistic post-war society. Makes me love her even more.
// Such the antithesis of a happy optimistic post-war society. //
I know! And I guess I did not realize that she experienced such harassment and anti-Semitic shunning in her nice little neighborhood. No wonder she came up with such tales of horror.
Nothing says vacation like the Origins of Totalitarianism!
xo
hahahahahahahaha
My friend Charlie was like, “So what are you taking to read on your vacation?” and I told him that – and I thought he might throw a plate of pasta at me.