Ever since the whole Gawker debacle involving the outed Conde Nast executive unfolded last week, I've been thinking about it. I've had mixed feelings about Gawker for some time, as I've expressed here on my blog and, for a while a few years ago, I had stopped reading the site entirely because I found it too vicious and nasty. I am not a fan of outing anyone who is minding his/her business and not obstructing the rights of others (via government legislation or something similar). To just pick on some guy and put his failed hookup out there for public consumption seems juvenile to me, but I understand why it was done. The Internet is a beast that must be fed. Web pages don't view themselves! Many clicks are needed to justify advertising prices. In other words, putting people's personal lives on blast via the Internet is a financial decision. The public wants and needs gossip, preferably about people who are in the public eye. The sleazier the news, the larger the audience. A failed hookup between a married guy and a male hustler? Clickbait! Hey, I read the story before it was taken down as did many other people, I'm sure. But when the drumbeat of criticism came from other media outlets, the story was pulled and an apology was issued. I find it amazing that so many other sites have jumped on the bandwagon to criticize Gawker for doing the same thing they do themselves. Everyone's fighting for page clicks and, sometimes, that fight gets nasty.
No comments:
Post a Comment