Let's Take a Gander at Gawker.com

Gawker.com is a gossip website. That makes it sound pretty unappetizing, doesn't it? The fact that it is a gossip website (as advertised by themselves) makes it's credibility questionable right off the bat. So why the hell would a college-age male save it in his bookmarks and visit the site multiple times a day (between checking Facebook and e-mail, of course)? Hear me out.


Gawker is just one of many sites that are a part of a family of sites that also include Gizmodo.com (tech news), Jalopnik.com (auto industry news), Jezebel.com (news about...women?), and a few others. Each specializes is a specific area, and Gawker's is general news and gossip about pretty much anything in the world. Just for a quick taste, right now on the home-page are headlines about a man who was stabbed to death by a rooster at a cockfight (oh the irony), Facebook founder Mark Zuckerburg's stalker, a review about the movie The Roommate, and a story about how Christina Aguilera botched the national anthem at the Superbowl. Between the 7 main writers for the site, they cover pretty much everything. These writers use mostly a combination of anecdotal, empirical, and textual evidence to discuss the topics they choose. Depending on the post, they'll sometimes interject their own opinions, but not all the time. 


What makes Gawker worth reading, in my opinion, is the way the articles are written. There are a team of writers that post multiple articles a day each. While each writer has a unique style, the articles all have a very evident underlying theme; cynicism. The writers know what they're writing about doesn't really matter, and write accordingly. So instead of writing as if the latest famous-for-nothing being in trouble was the most important thing happening in the world, they might put a quick blurb in the weekly update post about how pathetic that person is and move on. They take pop culture for what it is.


Here's a good example, from the article on Christina Aguilera's interesting national anthem performance. The writer is making fun of the fact that, if you didn't know the words yourself, you wouldn't be able to figure out what words she was actually singing. In this case, "the twilight's last gleaming."

"Personally, I prefer her rendition, and propose using the new verse, "Twilight's last reaming," to describe the [sex] scene in the fourth and final Twilight movie." -Maureen O'Conner here.

That kind of statement is obviously not aimed at bringing in teenage Twilight fans as readers, but a (much) more adult audience. This kind of cynical tone is laid on thick throughout nearly every article on the site, making it perfect for the kind of people who care about pop culture and current events, but only to make them smile - the kind of people who watch The Daily Show or Colbert Report. Given that the site is largely based on gossip, it isn't always the most credible source. But it's as good as any; the majority of postings are to inform readers of facts, and then sometimes give the author's view on the fact. Any speculation is made very clear in the writing, so it's easy to believe what's posted and not be misinformed. 


So if you, like me, are as cynical as a 70 year old man, I highly suggest reading Gawker and any of it's sister sites that you might be interested in.


*edit* I went back to edit a bit of the article and my computer had a panic attack - I lost the original post so I'm coming back to post it again.