: The Sunday NY Times finally discovers Gawker and its “droll” editrix, Elizabeth Spiers. The story’s good but the picture isn’t (if you want to see what she really looks like, go here… Elizabeth: Tina Brown would have demanded photographer and photo approval).

Note that Elizabeth also became a figure in the New York Post’s coverage of the “snotty private club” Soho House on Friday.

She’s a star. She’s a media fixture. As well she should be.

When you think about it, that’s pretty amazing. It was only a few months ago now that Nick Denton, to his great credit, not only started Gawker but saw that Elizabeth’s voice and view would be perfect for it and so she started snarking. Now big media is paying attention to her. She didn’t start a magazine, didn’t write a book, didn’t star in a TV show or movie, didn’t get arrested, didn’t date a mayor. She blogs.

: Also in the Sunday Times: How to lose friends on your blog.

  • Donnah

    “Droll”? No, just vapid. So Liam Neeson was seen stopping to tie his shoe. Big whoop.

  • Balbulican

    I think (he said cautiously) it must be a New York Thing. There’s a strange, complex scent that wafts from New York media products like the New Yorker and Lou Reed and Spy and Gawker…they all seem to be saying…
    “I shall focus on utter trivia with a sort of breathless enthusiasm tempered by amused, ironic detachment so you know that I KNOW it’s trivial…and yet my apparent seriousness and sophisticated packaging and wonderful reviews (by other New Yorkders) will keep you constantly wondering whether you’re not somehow missing a Deeper Point…perhaps you’re being blinded to a Greater Truth by your…well, there’s no other way to put it, your Non-New-Yorkeness.”
    We have the same problem up here with Toronto.

  • Donnah

    Egos are expanding exponentially, and we’ll soon need a site called “Blogosphere Halfwits”.

  • hey jeff — thanks for the nice comments. you’re right; the picture’s pretty bad. really bad, actually. THere’s one at the bottom of this post that’s pretty accurate, if only because I’m holding a cocktail in one hand.
    and to donnah: i don’t really know how to say this without ruining the joke, but… ‘big whoop’ is sort of *the point.* (doh! ruined the joke!)

  • Donnah

    Yeah, yeah.
    Well, y’all go back to high-fiving each other.

  • We may have the same problem up here in Toronto (a/k/a The City that Jeff Jarvis was Scared to Visit)–even though I can’t really agree, and Graydon Carter and Bonnie Fuller, to name two, certainly weren’t gonna earn their boldface by sticking ’round this burg–but that doesn’t mean anyone with a soapbox to stand on is doing it *well*. Might hafta work on that. (Well, I am. It’s too slow.) But for now–way to go Elizabeth. Can I boast that I was the very first to link Gawker after it first went live? (Because I was.)

  • (er, I suspect the initial commenter meant a problem with Toronto, rather than in one … in which case you’re just projecting, and forget what I said … truly, you’re better off having “issues” with NYC, it’s a more edifying pastime … )

  • Ooops … I screwed up what I meant to type as my clarification of the previous point, but there’s no point in going over it again now, is there?

  • Balbulican

    Hey, has anyone managed to figure out what those books on Jeff’s shelf are?

  • Also, I see that the verb “to zeta-jones” was mentioned in Entertainment Weekly.
    Don’t let the haters get you down, Elizabeth!

  • Balbulican

    I don’t hate it, I quite enjoy it: I’m becoming a reluctant Gawker addict. Just teasing a bit about the stance.

  • Congradulations are due to Mr. Denton and Ms. Spiers, but the verbose (yet yawningly typical) fawning by Mr. Jarvis is completely misplaced, to the point of annoyance. Consider first the fact that there are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of intelligent, irreverent, original, well-designed, well-written weblogs out there. As much as the blog community is doing its “underground” duty to promote its personalities, “blog stars” like Mr. Jarvis should be extremely wary of their own cleverness- for just as corporate media is trolled and controlled by a select few, it’s interesting to note that Gawker now makes major media mentions because its run by the same elitist, self-described kings of the blogsphere, and supported equally by Jarvis & Reynolds, the self-annointed sages who spend all day linking to each other and back. To say Gawker has broken through any kind of barrier is laughable, at best. To say that its anything original that an insta-blog started less than 6 months ago has already “made it” is worse than laughable- it’s a lame, uneccessary lie perpetrated by a media elitist of a new century and printed in the penultimate media elitist of the last century- the new york times.

  • Jason: Just a tip: One might take your criticism more seriously if only you knew how to spell.

  • I can’t tell you how glad I am to discover that not everyone either: (1) reads Gawker and likes it; or (2) doesn’t read it–but only because that aren’t interested in New York goings-on. It’s not the content or outlook that bothers me (as far as I’m concerned, NY really is a city that can kick any other city’s ass)–it’s the writing. For some reason, it just doesn’t flow like good writing should. There’s something stilted about it, as if it were written by a bright high-schooler with one hand on a pen and the other on a dictionary.
    Which is Gawker, and which is The New Yorker?
    Source 1: “It’s late Saturday afternoon at Cafe Pick Me Up on 9th and A, and I’m sitting across a thrift-store side table from Nicky Hilton, an Ivy-educated Wall Streeter in her late twenties. Her pigtails, Texas-sized belt buckle, and well-worn cords provide suitable camouflage in a room full of hipster trash.”
    Source 2: ” At lunch recently, in his customary booth at Morton?s, in West Hollywood, [Robert Cort] wore white silk trousers, a green nailhead jacket, and a Franck Muller wristwatch the size of a hard-boiled egg. Beneath a jester?s cap of curly brown hair, his face was tanned a color only George Hamilton?s mother could love.”

  • How can you compare a paragraph pounded out (by what I suspect was a stalking reader) in 30 seconds, tops, intended to have an impetuous spirit and energy (and consumed as such) with a passage from an article whose content might’ve been contemplated by the author for weeks, and revised by at least two or three editors, possibly more, not even intended for online consumption … plus, unlike most of my own mangled blog comments, the point comes across either way.

  • Did you look at the link? It’s an article, and not written by a reader, but by Spiers (according to http://nickdenton.org). It’s a Talk of the Town-style article, but not nearly as well done. Gawker isn’t a multi-million dollar production of course, but it still costs more, and makes more, than places with better writing. http://worldnewyork.net/, say.