“But one thing I can’t understand is how you guys seem to think that there are off limit subjects re: Gawker…Anyone who reads Gawker is fundamentally interested in things that are not really their business, that cross some boundary of appropriateness. Isn’t it obvious that people will have a keen interest in how the money changes hands there?” [Comments]
Well hey there, WandaWhoLikesTheSummerMonths: People who read Gawker or work there, or watch it professionally do have a keen interest in it, and they’re certainly entitled to it. There’s not much out there that I think is legitimately off-limits (the personal heartaches and tragedies of private citizens notwithstanding. Of course, if they put them on the Internet, fair game and no whining.)
There are, however, things I don’t think rate as many column inches as they typically get, including my own opinion on just about anything. Granted, it’s more than a little sanctimonious for me to criticize people for analyzing any media outlet, considering they’re only doing the job I did for a few months on someone’s payroll, which I usually do for free if anyone’s in hearing range. Then again, a little sanctimony is good for the soul.
What irritates me to no end is when reporters doing that analysis are interested less in pursuing the actual reality of a place than fulfilling a pre-designed narrative they’ve concocted about a place they love to hate to love. Go to Zaire or Missouri or something and try to change some lives for the better (a tired petition, to be sure, but no less true for being so. I’d go myself, but I can’t get anyone to pay me for it and a girl’s got to eat.) Which is why I also say, if they’re offering you some good cash for your pre-designed narrative, more power to you. The art of the sell-out is performed at least twice in a person’s life and if it isn’t, then you’re probably an insufferable moralist or an impostor. Both, usually.