May 19, 2005

On the Radar

We've seen it hundreds of times: two celebrities with downward career trajectories suddenly get "caught" doing something vaguely naughty together, generating vast amounts of press and rekindling their, well, celebrity. Everybody knows that these things are normally wholly fake and manufactured, but the public laps it up anyway.

Nowadays, of course, the best place from which to generate this kind of publicity is Drudge. And when the likes of Jake Dobkin say quite explicitly that the "incriminating" pictures come from "Marie from Four Corners Communications", it's weird that no one else seems to be calling bullshit on the whole "feud".

The "in with Gawker" crowd, sans pie-photos, are led by Gawker itself and Nick Denton. There's alsoGawkerist (which is allegedly part of the Gawker Media empire) and FishbowlNY, edited by ex-Gawker editor Elizabeth Spiers and Rachel Sklar (who is allegedly the girlfriend of Gawker's alleged guest co-editor this week).

The "in with Radar" (or at least "not with Gawker") crowd, with pie-photos, are Radar itself, natch, Dan Radosh, who works there, and of course the aforementioned Drudge, Krucoff and Dobkin.

Pretty much all of these people know all of the rest of these people, and they all relish a good new blogfight. (After all, Denton vs Calacanis is so old now, and Calacanis vs Dobkin never really took off in the public imagination.) But Radar vs Gawker isn't a blogfight, it's a publicity stunt. Shame on everybody who's blogging it. Myself included, of course.

UPDATE: I'm sorry, I'm truly sorry, but I couldn't resist the specatcle of Nick Denton waxing literary:

As security clears Maer and his last remaining guests out of the Hotel QT, the pool room, scene of the food fight, is empty. I hadn't noticed before: a bunch of spare invitations float on the surface of the pool. There's a big Radar logo at the bottom. But, through the scum of pie goo, it's hardly visible.

Posted by Felix at 04:38 PM GMT
Comments
#1

A new post finally! I thought all the MF'er had died and gone to blogging heaven. Being a lowly amateur blogger, I don't know any of these "celebrities" can I just make some up some shit about them? Better yet, can you make up some scandal that'll make me blogging famous?

Posted by: michelle on May 19, 2005 05:11 PM
#2

Umm, journalists throw pies and wine at each other? Doesn't this count as, well, nothing at all, really?

Posted by: murray on May 19, 2005 07:16 PM
#3

Thanks for the link, but I pretty clearly call it a publicity stunt. Or rather, to my everlasting shame, a "pieblicity stunt." WTF was I thinking? (N.b., this is my opinion, and not based on any special knowledge of the incident, of which I know only what I read).

Posted by: radosh on May 19, 2005 07:21 PM
#4

I have it on very good authority that Gawkerist is not a Gawker production, but there is some nebulous connection between the mysterious Gawkerist blogger and the infamous Lockhart Steele.

And Felix, no one cares what you think because you're merely a B-lister.

Posted by: Sterling on May 19, 2005 07:29 PM
#5

Dorothy Parker would be proud.

Posted by: 99 on May 19, 2005 08:47 PM
#6

I'm appalled that Jen Chung is considered an A-lister. She has the writing skills of an eight year old and her journalistic expertise is limited to paraphrasing the New York Post. I have never met her, but I hear she's much better looking in photo that in person, so I am baffled. No brains, no looks, what is it then? That site's list is bullshit, thats the only logical conclusion.

Posted by: Samson on May 19, 2005 09:44 PM
#7

I am afraid that Jen Chung is actually better looking in person than in photos - she's pretty freakin' hot. She's not a knock-down literary talent, but as far as projecting a charismatic persona, she's quite a powerhouse. I'm surprised no one has put her on TV.

Posted by: Sterling on May 19, 2005 11:40 PM
#8

Maybe they are concerned she'll say something like:

Editor's note: Norman Siegel has been implemental in organizing the rally tonight in Central Park. Here's a post earlier in the week we ran about it.

Posted by: 99 on May 20, 2005 03:21 AM
#9

"Implement" can often serve as a synonym for "instrument" - and they're similar sounding words, as well. That's the kind of error anybody might make in a rush.

Posted by: Sterling on May 20, 2005 05:44 AM
#10

I'll remember you said that, Sterling.

Posted by: Jame on May 20, 2005 06:29 AM
#11

99 and Samson, I think you guys are being way too hard on her. You sound like a couple of gossiping queens. Not everyone can be as gifted and beautiful as you lovely ladies.

Posted by: michelle on May 20, 2005 11:38 AM
#12

I wasn't begin too heart. Of you can't tale the differential between instrumental end implemental, I can't help you.

Posted by: 99 on May 20, 2005 01:22 PM
#13

(Yawn) I thought we were talking about gay dudes playing 91/2 weeks, not some boring advertising assistant who changed her wedding date because it's an unlucky year in the Chinese calendar.

Posted by: LR on May 20, 2005 08:43 PM