Monday, January 16, 2006

Blogging about blogging: Gothamist "reports" again

First off, Gawker still hates me:

Though upon re-reading my comment, I suspect they might be doing me a favor.

Update: Gawker does not hate me. A technical support staffer at Gawker named Jessica was nice enough to show me a workaround for the problem, which mainly involves clicking the mouse a lot and slapping the computer a few times. Thanks!

And speaking of hating, or um, h8ing, Gothamist reports on a sign hanging outside an art gallery on Canal Street. And I say "report" without any sarcasm - it's actually one of their writers finding something and informing its readers.

Of course, I took a photograph of the sign back in November, as in, "welcome to two months ago". Which is fine - no one expects Gothamist to be ubiquitous and omniscient. The post goes to show that the site is what it is because it relays information from news sources and reader tipsters.

And that's fine too. People like Gothamist for what it is. No one reads Gothamist for its reporting, and the more it tries to be something it's not, say, when trying to do the Gawker-style edgy (typical post title "X to Y: FU!"), it simply comes off desperate and horribly breaks from the site's friendly, "Pandas are cute!" tone.

I think of Gothamist much the same way I think of America - I like what it stands for and when it does the things it's supposed to do, I can't think of anyone else who does it better, except Canada, maybe. The Continentals may laugh at its lack of worldliness. Tea-sipping Brits may thumb their collective nose at its happy-go-lucky ways. But I can't help but admire its bubbly enthusiasm and the generally non-cynical tone.

But then there's the guy at the top. Just as Dubya is on an apparent mission to destroy all that people admire about this nation and confirming the worst suspicions of its detractors, Jake seems intent on alienating readers and contributors with his paper-thin skin and reckless outbursts. As Blogebrity's Angelina opines
"Paid staff or no, a blog, site, online publication, whateverthefuckyouwanttocallitsoyoucansleepatnight loses its integrity when helmed by a childish brat who seemingly spends the bulk of his day, not securing more ad revenue so that he can actually pay ALL of his staff in cash (not promises) like a good little publisher should, but rather trash talking other blog networks, picking fights, insulting industry colleagues, and generally not practicing good cyber-citizenry."

I like Gothamist. I like America. I think both Bush and Jake are perfectly good people. But when they clumsily attempt to cover ass and attack dissenters, neither seems to consider the long-term consequences on their public perception and Gothamist/America's well-being. Especially when a simple, "I understand your criticisms and I take responsibility for the missteps" would suffice. And if the criticism is misplaced, they would come off looking a lot better by simply stating the facts and not getting all ad hominem on they ass. I don't criticize because I hate Gothamist/America. I criticize because I believe both have room for improvement, and more importantly, the potential to be better.

Did I mention I don't like blogging about blogging?


<< Home