Gothamist: Severance Packages, Anyone?

ziegfeld

Fri, 09 Apr 2004 12:08:49 -0500

Gothamist: Knowing your professional background in marketing and this post's focus on chicken, I thought you'd find this bizarrely entertaining..and maybe worthy of comment (note the site sponsor) : http://subserviantchicken.com/ Separately, what's your policy/process for submissions?

stew

Fri, 09 Apr 2004 00:09:25 -0500

the real funny part is that trump's company is in horrible shape, has tons of debt and can't pay off the interest with their income. and this guy is telling people how a company works.

stereogum

Thu, 08 Apr 2004 21:54:42 -0500

I think "Lindsay Loves Ellipsis" could be an excellent grammar workbook for children. I mean, we think.

gothamist_fan

Thu, 08 Apr 2004 17:11:10 -0500

Well I stand corrected then. If you're all talking to each other about the articles, then that explains the "we". It also helps explain how super-often the site is updated, much to my delight, of course. So as I now understand it, Gothamist the "person" is the equivalent of a newspaper's editorial board. When Gothamist thinks something, it's the consensus of the group. Still, it seems to me that if there is not a consensus (if that ever happens) the poster should say "I", not "Gothamist" or "we". In any case, thank you Jen for solving the mystery for me of who exactly Gothamist is. I had thought that whoever was writing each piece temporarily assumed the role of Gothamist, but now I see that Gothamist is more of a collective ideology than an individual. Maybe there's a little bit of Gothamist in each of us. :-)

Erin

Thu, 08 Apr 2004 15:12:17 -0500

Hiding love for The Apprentice from a significant other? (You mean everyone isn't watching this show? But that's not what Mr. Trump said...) But, alas, the relationship might be doomed if the SO can't see how brilliant the show is. I fear the Oma. Rosa. factor on tonight's show.

Jen

Thu, 08 Apr 2004 13:53:05 -0500

Thanks for your wondering, fan, but pretty much the "we" does stand for a group of people. Jake, Hilly, Tien, etc. - we're all talking to each other and we're "taking a stand" on things. But I do understand your point. And neil, I still liked Fear Factor Junior better than two words, Oma-Rosa.

neil

Thu, 08 Apr 2004 13:34:25 -0500

the funniest part, which I keep forgetting about until i'm reminded, is maya ruldoph as Omarosa during weekend update. They dropped the tiniest piece of plaster that would still be visible by camera, and didn't stop there until they were throwing garbage cans and the like on top of her. Sure, it's juvenile humor, but had me laughing to tears. Ruldoph over reacted perfectly.

gothamist_fan

Thu, 08 Apr 2004 13:34:01 -0500

I'm a big fan of Gothamist. But as cool as Gothamist is, one thing about it rubs me the wrong way -- the author's liberal use of the royal plural and the third person. If a piece is written by one person, I think that person should write "I" instead of "Gothamist" or "we". I understand that the author is writing on behalf of Gothamist, but each blurb appears to have just one author, an "I", particularly since it even says who posted it at the bottom of the post. If it says "Posted by Jen Chung" at the bottom, then I am confused by how the author always refers to herself as "Gothamist", as though Gothamist were some third party who had done all the reporting. And as a "one person one vote" advocate, I don't believe in replacing "I" with "we". Otherwise, I love the diversity of topics on Gothamist, and recently I've really enjoyed the coverage of the olympic logo and food freshness. And I'm always amazed at how often Gothamist is updated.