March 01, 2004

The Kicker, RIP

I'm late to this game: both Gawker and Gothamist have noted that if you try to visit The Kicker, you'll find instead a page called "Rate It!". But the redirecting is actually quite complicated: if you try to visit recent individual entries from The Kicker (as featured in its RSS feed), you'll wind up being asked to rate different stores. Here's the list:

Original headline Redirects to:
Dear Graydon David Yurman
Haitian Revolution: Limited Upside Potential David Saity Jewelry
Jayson Blair Conversation Starters Dave's Army & Navy Store

Even in the world of blog redirects, it would seem, Graydon Carter is infinitely classier than Jayson Blair. Hell, Haitian revolutionaries are infinitely classier than Jayson Blair.

Posted by Felix at 04:32 PM GMT
Comments
#1

The lovely Ms. Spiers had been irregular in her posts, though. I'll miss her on a daily basis, but look forward to her contributions to New York weekly.

Posted by: Ron Mwangaguhunga on March 1, 2004 05:43 PM
#2

Ahem.

Posted by: Eurotrash on March 1, 2004 06:24 PM
#3

"The Kicker is not resolving properly," apparently. Needs to take a class in decisionmaking.

Posted by: Charles on March 1, 2004 06:29 PM
#4

It's true, I didn't double-check. But I did at least go to elizabethspiers.com to make sure there wasn't anything there -- and there wasn't, when I posted. I plead laziness, and the fact that I wanted to make a cheap Jayson Blair joke.

Posted by: Felix on March 1, 2004 06:35 PM
#5

i think it was an honest mistake on all parts- when jen saw it on gawker, she asked me if she should go with it- and i said yes, assuming choire had spoken to her. i should have emailed her- i am flaggelating myself right now. wait- flaggelating means beating right? because i'm not flexible enough to do the other thing.

Posted by: jake on March 1, 2004 06:44 PM
#6

It's interesting how a lack of, er, journalistic standards can suddenly be an "honest mistake" in the right context. All it would have taken was an email to find out the truth. Is this worse than anonymous blogging? Discuss and debate......

Posted by: Eurotrash on March 1, 2004 06:49 PM
#7

So either today is the day a blog institution disappeared, or today is the day blogs all collectively fuck up an easy test for journalism 101.

Either way, not a great start to March.

Posted by: Stefan Geens on March 1, 2004 06:51 PM
#8

i think it's pretty clear that it wasn't a journalistic fuckup- jen was quite clear in saying she was reporting that gawker said... but agreed- an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of apologies.

Posted by: jake on March 1, 2004 06:58 PM
#9

I trust Felix only a source of delicious Mojitos on warm spring mornings, and balmy summer nights.

Posted by: D-Nasty on March 1, 2004 06:58 PM
#10

Define "journalistic fuck-up".

Posted by: Eurotrash on March 1, 2004 07:01 PM
#11

Hey, I have the best, age-old, journalistic excuse: the story was completely accurate; it's just the headline which was wrong. And as we all know, headline writers are always anonymous and unaccountable. I would also note that ES was not on IM, which means that one couldn't assume she was answering emails. What's a reasonable length of time to wait between sending out an email and running with the story?

Posted by: Felix on March 1, 2004 07:02 PM
#12

How about, as long as it takes to be true?

Posted by: Eurotrash on March 1, 2004 07:05 PM
#13

yeah- she wasn't on IM, so I called out to her, saying "hey liz, is the kicker still up?" but after five minutes, i still hadn't gotten an answer, so we went with it. now granted, i was in my livingroom alone when i called out to her, but still- things are moving too fast to give someone more of a grace period than that.

Posted by: jake on March 1, 2004 07:05 PM
#14

"What's a reasonable length of time to wait between sending out an email and running with the story?"

A question worth answering IF you send out an email.

Posted by: Stefan Geens on March 1, 2004 07:07 PM
#15

Well, I think we all knew this is how it would end. Big media still doesn't get blogs, and the truth is that blogs have to be so honest and raw that they don't fit under an existing media brand.

I'm trying to get in touch with ES to pitch her on doing a Gawker version 3.0 on her own.

best Jason

Posted by: Jason McCabe Calacanis on March 1, 2004 07:07 PM
#16

Shit yeah. Just think. Someone else could have beaten you to that Pullitzer-winning scoop. Heavens above! Every second counts! If you don't report it quickly enough, she might get "un-fired"! It's truly a fast-paced world around here.

Posted by: Eurotrash on March 1, 2004 07:08 PM
#17

well said, eurotrash! you caught just the right amount of pathos and paranoia!

Posted by: jake on March 1, 2004 07:18 PM
#18

For what it's worth, the techincal problems have been resolved and The Kicker is back where it belongs.

Posted by: Frankenstein on March 1, 2004 07:35 PM
#19

felix, jen, jake - points taken. you trusted a source that you thought was reliable. i don't think it was a bad faith thing, although i'd have appreciated it if you had double checked.

gawker, on the other hand, sort of baffles me. professionally, i understand that the blogs-are-journalism-but-should-not-be-held-to-the-same-standards school of thought is the most dominant is the most dominant in the blogosphere, and I don't unequivocally disagree with it . but in this case, i don't think it's completely unreasonable to expect a little courtesy and a phone call or an email that says, "we heard this; do you want to respond?" when whatever they're writing about the subject (me) has a unique perceived credibility in a way that other sources wouldn't. since i used to be the editor of Gawker, people may wrongly assume--and have, historically-- that they have inside information as a result.

also - i'm completely accessible, so it's just weird...

Posted by: Elizabeth Spiers on March 1, 2004 07:35 PM
#20

also -

RE: how long you should wait after emailing to run with a story -- totally reasonable question, with, i think, variable answers. but totally irrelevant in this case, as NONE of the parties in question (choire, jen, jake, felix) emailed me.

Posted by: Elizabeth_Spiers@newyorkmag.com on March 1, 2004 07:41 PM
#21

It's kind of funny when Eurotrash gets so serious--even though, she's right.

Posted by: A.O. on March 1, 2004 07:48 PM
#22

Now TK's back up, of course, my entire original post is a bit baffling. But presumably anybody reading the comments will understand what happened.

But if we've all learned one thing from this entire escapade, it's, well, it's something we all already knew, really: Jason Calacanis really, really doesn't get it.

As for ET's comment in #16, you'll note that Gothamist credited Gawker for being first, and that I credited Gothamist and Gawker for getting there before me. We might not be competing for Pulitzers, but we do clearly care about who runs what first, in some circumstances. If Gawker looks like it's lifting something from Gothamist, that's bad.

Posted by: Felix on March 1, 2004 07:58 PM
#23

This is the only place I ever get serious. Must be something in the water.

Posted by: Eurotrash on March 1, 2004 08:02 PM
#24

Better to be first than to be right, eh? That's quite a motto.

Posted by: Stacy on March 1, 2004 08:19 PM
#25

Wow, Stacy, I'm actually angrier at your comment than I have been in a long time. Where do you get off being so holier-than-thou? A bunch of blogs jumped to conclusions this morning, and, as normally happens in the blogosphere, the mistake was rapidly pointed out to them, and corrections were made. If you'd rather read blogs which fact-checked everything they published, then I'd advise you not read any blogs at all, since there is no such blog.

Posted by: Felix on March 1, 2004 08:40 PM
#26

i agree with my friend felix- the episode this morning was pretty routine, in that the blogging mechanism is famous more for its error-correction than for its error-avoidance. liz is a lightning rod, of course, so i understand why people got their anger on, but really folks, there's no story here. except for the giant conspiracy, of course.

Posted by: jake on March 1, 2004 08:57 PM
#27

I have to say, we've definitely beaten ourselves up like the big boys.

Posted by: Stefan Geens on March 1, 2004 09:23 PM
#28

Just wanted to point out that we only charge $24 an hour for our freelance fact-checking services. Okay, ND, $20 for you.

Posted by: Blubox on March 1, 2004 09:30 PM
#29

Haha! The bots are running SQL queries with no results. Next step: total system failure.

Posted by: sac on March 1, 2004 10:01 PM
#30

that's what blogs are about. first publish then filter/correct. so why are you guys being fussy?

Posted by: Franz on March 1, 2004 10:45 PM
#31

Oh what joy! A posting in which Felix comes an absolute cropper, the silly little scug!

Posted by: Claude de Bigny on September 20, 2005 06:37 PM
#32

Elizabeth Spiers' deathless prose:

"professionally, i understand that the blogs-are-journalism-but-should-not-be-held-to-the-same-standards school of thought is the most dominant is the most dominant in the blogosphere, and I don't unequivocally disagree with it . but in this case, i don't think it's completely unreasonable to expect a little courtesy and a phone call or an email"

Felix, you absolute scug! You are worse than a disgrace, you are a mistake!

Posted by: Claude de Bigny on September 20, 2005 07:15 PM