Gawking Ourselves to Death

Until a few weeks ago, I'd never paid much attention to Gawker. I had a vague sense that they were a gossip website that had something to do with New York. Then my editor sent me a link to a post they wrote about me. As it turned out, they'd been talking shit about me for a while.

No surprise there.

What surprised me was that my editor seemed positively thrilled at the idea that I'd made Gawker's hit list. Apparently, being loathed electronically is the surest sign you've arrived.

But I didn't really get why my editor was so excited until I read this piece in New York Magazine (by Vanessa Grigoriadis) which thoughtfully describes how Gawker has tapped into the "rage of the creative underclass" within the small, aggrieved universe of New York City literati.

Perhaps because I don't live in that universe, Gawker strikes me as something a bit less class-conscious. It's basically the Fox News of the publishing world. It feeds off the same rage and envy as Bill O'Reilly and company. Granted, Gawker hate has that sophisticated Manhattan patina of snark. But it's the same slithery pitch to people's worst instincts. It's driven by the same compulsion as the GOP: the need to shame others, rather than facing up to your own shame.

I am not suggesting that Gawker has any political agenda. On the contrary, it's an entirely amoral zone. The only law that guides Gawker is the Law of Stimulation. In this sense, the site is really only an exaggeration of the mainstream media's prevailing modus operandi -- and a more forthright one at that.

They don't pretend to care about "objectivity" or even accuracy for that matter. For supporting evidence, check out this mind-boggling clip from a CNN interview with Gawker editor Emily Gould, about the site's popular Gawker Stalker feature, in which she declares, "Everyone who reads it knows that it isn't checked at all ... I mean do you read US Weekly and expect that everything in it is true, or Star?"

As Gould herself notes in the Grigoriadis piece, every day her email in-box is overrun by the "id" of New York publishing. Her job, as she sees it, is merely to channel that id.

The payoff for Gawker bloggers is that they gain enough notoriety to land jobs within the media empires they claim to despise. This is the same essential career path as Sean Hannity (or, for that matter, Senator Joseph McCarthy). If you hate with enough charm and eloquence and conviction, you'll wind up a star.

As Gould herself helpfully observes for Grigoriadis: "At the end of the day, your ideas in a book have less impact than if you had summed them up in two paragraphs on the most widely read blog at the most-read time of the day, so why'd you spend two years on it? But there's other ways to get noticed than the Internet, right? ... There's always TV."

This is how pundits are born and bred.

I do get why my editor (or other publishing wage slaves) are addicted to Gawker. But it's also hard to believe that they can't see the ways in which the site is exploiting their desperation. Gawker readers remind me of all those aggrieved citizens who continue to fall for the GOP's hate campaigns -- and to vote against their own economic interests.

Because in the end Gawker isn't about the world of publishing. The folks there don't care about books. They merely enjoy bullying authors from time to time. Nor do they really care about deflating celebrity culture, as they love to claim. In fact, their site owes its existence to the twisted psychology of celebrity worship.

If Gawker's seductive virulence were just a "New York thing" or a "publishing thing" it wouldn't matter that much. But ultimately, the site represents something broader: it's a flagrant symptom of the culture of grievance that has overtaken our national discourse.

By appealing to our most childish impulses -- and with the cowardly consent of the left -- the right-wing of this country has managed to Gawk the political discourse.

This is why matters of policy go uncovered, while gossip and gaffes and cleavage and haircuts and (most of all) emotionally convincing ad hominems determine the outcome of elections.

If this country ever hopes to rouse itself from the moral torpor marked by the Bush years, we are going to have to end our addiction to Gawking, and face up to the common crises of state.

Steve Almond's new essay collection is (Not That You Asked)

Comments

[JScott]

I've never heard about half the so called 'celebs' Gawker is blogging about, my my aren't they in their insular world of Manhattan.
Guess it really doesn't matter as long as someone makes a lotta money and/or gets to be famous (and make a lotta money too).
Recalling the words to the tune....
'If I can make it there, I'll make it anywhere...'

Guess it might be true.

[kkuchenb]

Yeah, but when Gawker is good, it's really good. It ridicules pompous twits brilliantly. But it's true that very often those who don't deserve it also find themselves in their crosshairs.

And as for "not caring about books," Last week there were scads of the most hilariously literate comments on James Lipton's latest over-the-top pretentious tome.

Just because they can be crude and mean doesn't mean the don't get it just right. And you definitely can't say that about Fox.

[nynick]

A critique of Gawker isn't unwarranted but conflating it with political discourse is a bridge too far in my opinion. Fox, O'Reilly and Hannity all have a political agenda beyond self enrichment. I doubt Emily or the rest of the Nick Denton slaves think much beyond the fat big media paycheck. If Mr. Almond is looking for reasons behind the rise of totalitarian Republicanism under Bush, he need look no further than ozcam's razor, it was combination of fear and power lust. It's that simple. After eight years of Bill Clinton, the country took a chance on a guy they thought they'd like to have a beer with. After 9/11, the people behind his election exploited the fear and uncertainty in ways that would never have been possible without that event. They were good at it too. Unfortunately, they were not so good at actually governing and eventually that catches up to you. Their incompetence has likely ruined the Republican brand for at least a decade. Gawker had nothing to do with any of it.

[GenericBlogger]

Steve Almond wrote "This is why matters of policy go uncovered, while gossip and gaffes and cleavage and haircuts and (most of all) emotionally convincing ad hominems determine the outcome of elections."

Not all voters are persuaded by the cleavage, haircut and who knows what other titillating political stories and spins. Those who don't support Edwards because of the haircut and similar stories won't vote for Edwards any ways. Gawks exist in all political camps because it's part of human nature.

Many aren't willing to think for themselves, they don't want to spend the time to familiarize themselves with history, geography, civics, and other subjects related to current issues. They follow pied pipers, they become the animals in Animal Farm who learn about political life from the writing on the barn's side. They are seduced and captivated by the motor mouths of talk radio, TV, pulpits and megachurches who spew distortion after distortion in the name of a higher authority or purpose. The motor mouths escalate themselves to pseudo prophet status claiming to deliver followers to the promised land of happiness, salvation, prosperity and no spin. Followers such as the ditto heads and others congregate and follow in flocks.

Many are reached and convinced by emotion instead of reason and those with charisma have the greatest reaching power.

There are many but not enough who take the time to learn more about issues. While not having all relevant facts, they are more likely to make better and informed decisions.

[2Truthy]

"Because in the end Gawker isn't about the world of publishing. The folks there don't care about books."

Oh, I don't know about that. It's not entirely possible that the editors
couldn't be bribed into speed-reading

Candyfreak: A Journey through the Chocolate Underbelly of America

...Especially if a few chocolate bars and grease guns were thrown in to sweeten the deal.

[olegna]

>> But it's also hard to believe that they can't see the ways in which the site is exploiting their desperation.

[nynick]

I don't know...

"If this country ever hopes to rouse itself from the moral torpor marked by the Bush years, we are going to have to end our addiction to Gawking, and face up to the common crises of state."

Huh? What does one have to do with the other?
Gawker is popular because it's snarky and tosses pebbles at the higher ups in NYC society.
Most of us aren't getting invited to P.Diddy's White Party in the Hamptons. Is it that surprising for us lower caste folks to want to poke fun at those who do? None of this has anything to with Bush, Republicans or the state. Gawker is about intelligent snark and the skewering of the cult of celebrity. Nothing more. They aren't saving the whales or making the world a better place. They are poking a stick in the eye pompous and self involved people where ever they find them. I happen to enjoy that kind of thing.

[Pdubya]

put down your keyboards, join a meetup group, meet, hang signs, carry signs, pass out literature face to face and unite...then actually go vote.

[YellowPanties]

Steve Almond is right.

He might be feeling a little stung because his private note to his publishers was leaked and makes him look like a self-deluded egotist, BUT everything he says about Emily Gould and Gawker is right on the money.

Gawker's problem is that they are phony. They love celebrities more than anyone yet feel it's okay to endanger them because "they are protected by all their money" (or whatever Gould said on that clip where Jimmy Kimmel destroys her.

Gould is a gossipy bitch playing at writing, and nothing she does on her site will ever move the world one inch in the direction of being a better place.

Steve Almond, like his writing or not, is at least aware of these things and is sincere when he says he wants to change people's hearts.

Emily is like the girl who doesn't get asked to the dance and then screams about how stupid dances are (or something).

Lastly, yes, celebrities make lots of money, but they are not animals. People going about their day, minding their own business should not be subjected to taunts and harrassing for a movie or TV role they did. Celebrities have been hurt and murdered for no reason, so get over your money-envy.

Lastly, fuck Gawker.

[peaceandfreedom]

Steve-

It isn't confined to just Gawker and its clones. It has infected the blogosphere on HuffPo and elsewhere to an amazing degree. All vitriol and bombast and no substance screamed at top volume 24-7.

There are boards that read like alternate universes, where one or two posters using multiple identities hi-jack the discussion and employ the same Rovian tactics and RNC talking points you allude to re Fox, O'Reilly and Hannity.

"The payoff for Gawker bloggers is that they gain enough notoriety to land jobs within the media empires they claim to despise."

This validates my suspicions that not only are many paid trolls, but have aspirations of bieng the next Coulter as well.

"it's a flagrant symptom of the culture of grievance that has overtaken our national discourse."

Says it all--god save us from the pundits!