too much, too much

The weird part of Gawker's nosedive in quality, intelligence and humor is that the best outlet to point out this recent collapse in quality would be... Gawker. Right? I mean I'm thinking that no one but quality Gawker would be as good as explaining how Gawker lost its edge, and why, exactly, the current product is such a pale, sad imitation of what it was.

Consider this post. What would the old Gawker make of such a weak attempt at righteous anger? I can't imagine a more classic example of revealing your own desperation and weakness through an attack on someobody else. What comes across even clearer than Ian Spiegelman's derision for this guy (Message: I really dislike this guy! And it's funny cause its so over the top!) is his emotional investment in what this dude thinks. Who the hell cares? I can't imagine getting up the bile necessary to write this about just about anyone, let alone this choch. I think this whole thing reveals the secret of Gawker and similar temples of derision: the insult is only as important as you let it be. I imagine that if you're targeted by Gawker or some similar site, the negativity seems like the worst thing in the world for a little while... and then, suddenly, it strikes you that it doesn't matter at all.

The problem with these kinds of angry harangues is that they almost always say more about you than the person or thing you're attacking.

Look I never liked Gawker or most of its sister sites, though I dig Jezebel. I believe that treating other people with empathy and kindness is one of our duties here on earth, and Gawker is a never-ending carnival of petty cruelty and casual insults. But I at least have always admired their skill, the edge to the comedy and the note-perfect attitude that the writers developed in their writing. And that's been lost, almost completely, from the main site. This isn't a very original thought, but I've always thought that the fuel that powered Gawker (and Defamer, and Deadspin) was plain jealousy, jealousy of people in the Manhattan media elite, in the Hollywood movie business, and professional sports, respectively. And I've also thought that the writing was at its best when that jealousy was admitted frankly and openly. As the famous n+1 piece said, the more powerful Gawker has become, the less effective and cutting its satire has been. The worst part of every new batch of Gawker writers has been that all of their posts seem to scream "Don't you know who I am? I write for Gawker!"

This guy seems to think that he can summon some of that old magic just by upping the forced indignation. But none of it rings true, as a few brave commenters have pointed out. Gawker is never particularly well served by its commenters, despite their massive self-regard, and the more I read comments telling the writers how well they took somebody down, or how great and cutting the blog has been, the more convinced I am that the opposite is true.