eFilmCritic Forum Index eFilmCritic
Community Forum
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Jimmy Kimmel puts the beatdown on Gawker.com

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    eFilmCritic Forum Index -> Off-Topic Chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Oz
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5895
Location: Vancouver, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 3:53 pm    Post subject: Jimmy Kimmel puts the beatdown on Gawker.com Reply with quote

Watch this clip and please explain to me two things.

1) Why is it that it takes Larry King being absent, and repalced by a latew night variety show comedian, for someone to actually be grilled on Larry King Live?

2) Is there anyone on this website at all who, in the same situation as Ms Deer in the Headlights, would have been as unprepared, stupid, and outright foolish as the woman being interviewed?

Good for Kimmel. He now officially has my permission to schtup Sarah Silverman.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
laura
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2630
Location: austin, tx

PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it's an interesting clip, but it didn't look to me like she was grilled. But then again, I happen to like it when people throw rocks at celebrities -- like Perez Hilton for instance. Sure, she doesn't have much moral high ground, but I don't think I got what you got from this at all, haha. She actually makes a few fascinating insights into citizen "journalism" and privacy issues, but I'm learning about that stuff in a class right now, so it stood out to me.
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/laurjane
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Alex Paquin
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 16 Jul 2002
Posts: 1719
Location: Quebecland

PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A few points:

That woman does not look good on TV. Yes, she is pretty, but as far as body language goes, her doing interviews is a mistake. But hey, anyone who can reflect badly on Nick Denton and his enterprises is okay with me. Looking at the sites under his umbrella is what repelled me from the "blog" phenomenon in the first place. Blogs at their best are intimate affairs, sort of a public diary, but when you start treating them like a business, with expendable low-cost writers who are fuelled by ambition and attitude, that's when it becomes irritating.

Gawker, ah, Gawker, that we're-snarkier-because-we're-from-New-York-the-center-of-the-universe website that Osama Bin Laden probably uses as a recruiting tool (Kand El, if you're reading, feel free to correct/chide me), already thinks of itself as above condemnation. But there is no ethical justification whatsoever for what Gawker Stalker is doing, so that spokesperson might as well have been asked to defend the viewpoint that cigarettes are beneficial for your health. So it's not entirely her fault either, except for being part of the scheme.

And as the panelist from "Us Weekly" said, wait till one of those celebs tracked down by Gawker Stalker turns into a new John Lennon, and the legal hawks will descend on the site. There's not much you can say to counter that, knowing that it's happened before, though it was not related to Gawker.

Ah, and "citizen journalists"... I wonder, if Gawker is ever dragged in court, whether it will ask "citizen attorneys" to mount a defense. As much as I don't like the idea of regulating who can be a journalist and who cannot (as opposed to doctors and lawyers, who must possess well-defined knowledge), this insistence from outside the profession that anyone who blogs is a journalist makes me cringe. Sure, you have people with no journalism background who become good reporters, and journalism school's usefulness, from what I read, is still debated, but if I decided to start a blog tomorrow, would that make me a journalist overnight? I don't think so. A pamphleteer, perhaps, but not a journalist.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Kand El
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 1684
Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No chides here Alex- me and the effite, NY is-the-center-of-the-universe subset of Manhattan never really got on all that well. I wasn't enamoured of that mindset in my Greenwich village days of folks stamping their personalities on themselves via tatoos or empty rhetoric that barely had any legs inside the dormitory much less in Washington Square Park, and even less so upon my return to Manhattan (where I promptly moved right under 125th Street to not be bothered by the throngs of affected, mannered boors).

Its one of the reasons I'd rather spend my time in Westchester watching the deer and wild turkeys run across my yard and feeding my fish, and among the reasons that I really would not stomach living in the city again (aside from the fact that I find it to be more of a single man's world and I've discovered I'm a country boy at heart- all that growin' up in South Carolina paid off- you know, minus the need to staple the Stars n' Bars over every piece of property I own).

As for gawker- I haven't availed myself of the service- one can stumble into celebrities well enough on their own if you spend enough time wandering the streets to not need an e-version of the Beverly Hills map and I had enough run ins back in the day to realize these folks are far more interesting onscreen than off.

Kimmel really did get to her and that was pretty funny- her facial ticks, the furious eyebrow wriggling, and her wide eyed "Oh, you're so bad Jimmy but you're not really getting to me, but you are" looks were fantastic.

Of course, I did have to do a double take at Jimmy Kimmel on the high horse, but then I realized that anything he's done in "The Man Show" or on his talk show was pretty much self-effacing and never slanderous to my recollection. You know, except for the "women as objects" thing- but... well frankly I was ok with it at the time and its in a completely separate realm from Gawker's mission.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bentino Furioso



Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 216
Location: 35 and 40

PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I watched the clip twice, the second time without sound and Gould was a lot funnier when you could just see her face in action. I've seen silent movie comics who were more subtle.
_________________
All movies mean something--even the ones that try not to. Paul Schrader
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Oz
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5895
Location: Vancouver, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The thing with citizen journalism is, you don't get to ignore the rules just because you're a 'citizen' and not a union member. Earning a paycheck from a media outlet isn't what makes you a journalist. Researching, checking, and writing informational, interesting, and fact-checked stories is.

I can be a citizen carpenter, but if I can't hammer two planks together without them sticking to the floor, I'm nothing more than a douchebag with a hammer.

The word 'journalism' implies a system of rules and ethics that MUST. NOT. BE. BROKEN. Thus, if a blogger follows those rules (IE: properly sourcing their info, fact-checking, keeping opinion and bias properly separated from the facts), as the bloggers did when they broke the Jeff Gannon 'fake Whitehouse reporter' scandal, of course they qualify as journalists.

But being a blogger doesn't make you AUTOMATICALLY a journalist any more than owning a hammer automatically makes you a carpenter, or owning a drill makes you a dentist.

Sadly, using the rules above as a guide, there aren't many actual journalists who qualify as journalists these days. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that there are a lot of bloggers who qualify as better journalists than their counterparts in the mainstream media, as the recent Nancy Pelosi 'talking to terrorists' faked controversy demonstrates.

Let's take my baseball blog as an example. On it, I interview players, I get info from team employees and front office staff, I filter PR from the team itself, I observe happenings that go on behind the scenes, and I present all of that in an unfiltered, facts-first kind of way for a healthy and growing readership.

The daily newspaper journalists in my city, at the same time, do none of that unless they get a press release pointing out a reason they should, complete with the bulk of the story already laid out for them by the team.

In fact, I know of one daily press journo who gets a ton of his stories off my blog. So who is the journalist and who is the stenographer in this set-up?

What Gawker does is 'citizen gossip columning', not 'citizen journalism'. And what that really means is, they'll print any lie you send them.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Alex Paquin
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 16 Jul 2002
Posts: 1719
Location: Quebecland

PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oz wrote:
Earning a paycheck from a media outlet isn't what makes you a journalist.


I agree with you that the distinction between a journalist and a non-journalist is not that easy to make, but it's the same debate one can make about who is a professional film critic and who is not. To avoid the entire business of "you are a film critic if you like Film A and dislike Film B and if you can quote Eisenstein " (like that Guardian article someone pointed to in the other forum), I would rather keep it simple -- you're a professional if you're getting paid to write your stuff. Not a perfect description, but it avoids value judgements in most cases.

Quote:
The word 'journalism' implies a system of rules and ethics that MUST. NOT. BE. BROKEN.


I guess we all know journalists who will stop at nothing, not even ethics, to get their story; they'll pretext their way to information, they'll pay people for testimonies, they'll lie if it can help their case. Reminds me of the Cincy Enquirer's Chiquita flap, committed by very real journalists working for a very real newspaper. So even ethics, I'd say, don't determine who is a journalist and who is not.

Remember Josh Wolf, the blogger who went to jail because he refused to turn over footage of a demonstration that turned violent? Professional journalists' associations lionized him, but some questions were raised initially about whether he actually was a participant, rather than a simple witness, in the events he was filming. I'm all for refusing to name secret sources -- whether you're Bob Woodward or Judith Miller -- but if you're filming something in public and are refusing to turn over what you've recorded to authorities, you're obstructing, because you haven't promised confidentiality to anyone. But at the same time, it's his own involvement in the cause he was filming that needs to be addressed. (I read that he's sold footage to TV stations, but every witness with a camcorder isn't instantly turned into a journalist.) Heh. Even Wikipedia calls him a journalist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Wolf . The discussion on that page alone is worth it.

So ethics, yes, they matter, but we can't invoke them to decide who is a journalist and who is not.

Oz wrote:
Let's take my baseball blog as an example. On it, I interview players, I get info from team employees and front office staff, I filter PR from the team itself, I observe happenings that go on behind the scenes, and I present all of that in an unfiltered, facts-first kind of way for a healthy and growing readership.

The daily newspaper journalists in my city, at the same time, do none of that unless they get a press release pointing out a reason they should, complete with the bulk of the story already laid out for them by the team.

In fact, I know of one daily press journo who gets a ton of his stories off my blog. So who is the journalist and who is the stenographer in this set-up?


Yes, but your case is not that clear-cut. You have a blog, yes, but you also have a pedigree as a professional writer, whether it's on film or on other matters. You may not have attended j-school, but you get paid for what you're writing outside of your blog. The guy writing for your local paper, he's a journalist, too, despite being a hack by the looks of it. I agree with you on one point, though, and it is that newspaper journalism is moribund these days.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Oz
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5895
Location: Vancouver, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Moribund? It's doomed.

But if idiots like Gawker can call themselves 'citizen journalists' without being called on their shit, then 'citizen journalism' is just as doomed.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Alex Paquin
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 16 Jul 2002
Posts: 1719
Location: Quebecland

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Speaking of blogging, I'm wondering what you think of this:

Call for a Blogger's code of conduct. More here: http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/Blogger's_Code_of_Conduct

Apparently there is already opposition to such rules. Sad to say, but it's probably going to take one high-profile libel case, or something to that effect before bloggers realize they are not above the law. At least newspaper newsrooms still hold themselves to codes of ethics and come complete with well-furnished legal departments.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Oz
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5895
Location: Vancouver, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it's utterly ridiculous, frankly.

My thoughts echo those of DailyKos owner Markos Moulitsas pretty closely, so I'll just cut'n'paste him:

Quote:
Look, if you blog, and blog about controversial shit, you'll get idiotic emails. Most of the time, said "death threats" don't even exist -- evidenced by the fact that the crying bloggers and journalists always fail to produce said "death threats". I suspect many are like this gem I recently received:

Quote:
AIDS will be killing more amd more of you liberals every year. We conservatives have all the money, and you will be shining our shoes. You will stay in your minimum wage jobs. You are poor. We are rich. We get to travel. You don't. You have to scrape for tips. How about that 2000 election? Nigger Cochran couldn't save you. Is it true that "liberal" means "small penis" in Esperanto? Republicans will hold the Presidency until 2029 at least. You think you have power with Dago Pelosi, but you work for us. We let you "win" an election here and there just to fool you. Pretty cool how the Taliban would let stone walls fall on homosexuals. That is what will happen to liberals. God does not love liberals. That is why he gave you AIDS. Let's hope more gays and liberals get beaten up. From your genetic superior.


Some might say that the line "AIDS will be killing more amd more of you liberals every year" and the "stone wall" thing are "death threats". They are not. They're just the rantings of a lunatic. For my part, I've gotten my fair share of such vile emails. Some of them have threatened my children. One or two actually crossed the line into "death threat" territory. But so what? It's not as if those cowards will actually act on their threats. For better or for worse, this isn't a country in which media figures -- even hugely controversial ones -- are routinely attacked by anything more dangerous than a cream pie.

Email makes it easy for stupid people to send stupid emails to public figures. If they can't handle a little heat in their email inbox, then really, they should try another line of work. Because no "blogger code of conduct" will scare away psycho losers with access to email.


What he said.

If you want to say their should be a set of ethics that good bloggers follow, fine, okay - but there kind of already are. They're the rules of responsible journalism.

But anonymous people who send email aren't going to be bound by those any more than they are the rule of law. At least as long as they can't be traced back to their home computer, anyway.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
laura
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2630
Location: austin, tx

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey, how come we all ignored Kimmel's completely stupid statement of "I don't know why anyone would by advertising on a website.."?
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/laurjane
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Oz
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5895
Location: Vancouver, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 1:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think there were some words on the end he never got out.

Like maybe, "... that writes lies."
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
laura
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2630
Location: austin, tx

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I disagree, I think Kimmel completely underestimates online advertising and how it's the only advertising that's going up, while advertising in print is going down.

Anyways, an update:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/opinion/04gould.html?ex=1178942400&en=0a93c76233ba53bf&ei=5070

I don't think Gawker is some amazing site of integrity -- but to beat up on it like it somehow has less credibility than an entertainment magazine is a little silly in my opinion.
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/laurjane
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Post new topic   Reply to topic    eFilmCritic Forum Index -> Off-Topic Chat All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group