Smoking Ban May Now Include Your Apartment
Giuliani Livid Over Bringing 9/11 Trials to NYC
House Cat Terrorizes Family In Dramatic Hostage Situation
Access-A-Ride Nailed by Local News
Oreo The Dog Is Dead, Blame Game Is Not
The NY Times writes about how lots of people keep blogs even though few read them, and the bloggers become obsessive over posting entries. (News flash: People really get into their personal hobbies!) It includes the requisite quote from Jeff Jarvis (something about addiction or narcissism or obsession...but not the 12-step program). Luckily, Felix Salmon writes a parody of the article so no one else has to.
Gothamist may be a blog, but we also think of ourselves sort of as independent press - you know, like your high school newspaper, without an advisor or a spellcheck program, super scrappy but with some funding from the school activities fund. Then again, we just gave a cat a lion cut, so what do we know?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
As I've stated before, I generally enjoy Gothamist...its postings cover many of my interests, and its intelligent, literate & humorous take on things brighten my workday.
Yet, after two or three months of reading, its move towards posting banner ads, the recent announcement of the Chicago edition (shades of a publishing "empire" to come) and Jen's comment in this post, I'm still confused as to what Gothamist IS or wants to be.
Its been self-described as a privately funded personal Web site, with the right to delete comments that don't meet its standards of taste or propriety. Yet this post makes the claim that it's a "sort of independent press"...independent, how? Independent of advertising? Independent compared to what rivals? And would it really reject an offer from an investor---whether an indvidual or Knight-Ridder---to purchase it, for the sake of "independence"?
The comparison to a newspaper seems just a bit forced, and is somewhat irritating. Isn't Gothamist more of a digest or summary, a compilation of articles and event listings written by others, sifted through the filter of Jen's, Jake's and the columnists' interests, served up with commentary? Two things I associate with newspapers, particularly "super scrappy" ones, are original reporting and strong editorials on the serious issues of the day. Does Gothamist provide either?
I find the claim of "it's just our personal Web site, paid for out of our own pockets" a bit disingenuous, in light of the evidence of Gothamist's ambitions...PR listings (I first started reading Gothamist because of a mention in AM New York), networking in the publishing and tech communities, advertising, sponsorship of branded events, brand extension into new geographical markets, etc., etc.
Gothamist points me to interesting articles in the Times, introduces me to new Web sites, informs me about goings-on in the Village and Brooklyn, prompted me to sample Bearded Poppa and rent Demonlover, makes me wish I had the resources to sample the City's newest restaurants, and makes me laugh. But a "super scrappy" "independent press" it is not.
I'll keep reading, though, and observing with interest your evolution.
People think the internet was custom-built just for them.
In fact the opposite is true: the internet has communities and worlds and one such world is the blogosphere.
I have been reading the Gothamist for a couple months now, after learning about the site from rachelleb.com. I love the spirit behind blogs and I think that the Gothamist has the spirit of blogging down pat and is a great reflection of the NYC area culture or subcultures.
I learn about details of the news or the NYC-area that I wouldn't get from a nationally syndicated newspaper or mag.
Gothamist is not an evil media empire taking over your world. It is very much INDEPENDENDANT, they obviously post any tidbit they want and enjoy a status of being very much intune to what their visitors or NY'ers like to do and read.
Even though I hate the self-promoting nature that plagues 90% of blogs (that figure is from my imagination), I think the Gothamist is very much NYC--and not a self-promotion nightmare--very much in the spirit of what NY'ers talk about and I don't see A BIG EVIL franchise taking over cities across the world. The Chicago thing from what I gather is an effort by an Independent group of bloggers there who do not want to replace entities there but just want to make another blog that they can post their own blog articles and thoughts on.
So, as far as the previous comment, save the comment for the mentality that ruined online resources from the west-coast where money and greed prevailed and "content" was something you forcefed and not necessarily had a connection to. Gothamist has been a great little corner of cyberspace appreciated and liked by bloggers and blogreaders in the NYC area and they are just like a nifty school-run newspaper with great reads and great images of the city.
People think the internet was custom-built just for them.
We're using the term "independent" in a similar sense as the time when there were independent film companies. Sure, we're privately funded, or raise our own funds, but we're more like owner-operators, versus franchiser-franchisees. We were looking at our crude business model (making enough money to cover the site costs) in comparision to a Gawker Media or Weblogs Inc. kind of operation, while still realizing that Gothamist is not exactly like someone's personal blog.
And the whole thing about comments, this has been covered so many times before, but I notice that newspapers don't publish every single bit of hate mail they get. Gothamist definitely tries to keep all comments on there, even the critical ones, but sometimes, good taste needs to reign, and when the same person has been saying the same thing over and over again, without adding anything new to the argument, it diminishes the value of comments.
In the future, everyone will be famous to fifteen people.
i thought independent = nearly broke.
No offense, but to consider yourself an "independent press" you'd have to actually write/research/interview the stories yourself. Reposting the news doesn't count.
Mr. Pierce, who lives in Hollywood and works as a scheduler in the entertainment industry, said blogging began to feel like an addiction when he noticed that he would rather be with his computer than with his girlfriend - for technical reasons.
"She's got an iMac, and I don't like her computer," Mr. Pierce said. When he is at his girlfriend's house, he feels "antsy." "We have little fights because I want to go home and write my thing," he said.
priceless
usually, but what does it mean to be "INDEPENDENDANT?" have you ever seen a word mangled so badly?
NY Times writing a condescending piece about weblogs? No way!
Don't be the media, the media sucks.
Sorry, for misspelling independent earlier, it was 6:30am before my coffee, I just had to say that crying is not participating in the world is all I was pointing out. Poo Poo -ing the internet is so rampant these days that nobody in the world is allowed their own little piece of infinite free expression on the net, anymore. Blog commentors have the same fallible tendency to be hypocrites. Hope I didn't misspell anything, I will try to keep in mind the Mein Kamf rule of spelling correctly, next time (if there ever is one) to comment on a comment.
Yowzees... can't we all just get along?
Here's the deal for those who don't know the deal. Jake is a business major at Colmbia and he's the publisher. Jen is a public relations person and does the writing. While the both of the constantly claim to a pathological level that Gothamist is just some personal hobby, they clearly want it to be more.
There is nothing wrong with that.
But what's irritating is that Jake basically wants to be a version of Nick Denton. A blog publisher who can flip this site for a profit. But press him about it and he bends over backwards to deny the claim. If you take a step back and look at the whole Gothamist deal, they clearly want to be bigger. They clearly want to make it a business. Nothing wrong with that. But they clearly want to "spin" it all as if they are just doing this as a casual goof. That's annoying and irritating.
As much as I think Nick Denton is a jerk, he at least is very clear on where he stands. Jake's and Jen's wishy washy "we'll change what Gothamist is based on what works to our advantage" is really playing itself thin.
And why should the casual reader care? Good question. Considering how editting and tech help readers often have to provide the technically challenged Jake and Jen, it's not fair. I'll happily help out anyone in a community. But if you turn around and use that knowledge to profit from it without sharing that profit with me? That's unfair and deceptive. It's using the community aspect of blogging to provide a "free" back-office and tech support service to a for-profit entity.
Gothamist owns an Aeron chair? Great. Most of your readers can't afford a $500 piece of overpriced furniture. That chair broke? Don't come crying to us. Crack open that wallet and deal with it on your own.
I think you get the picture. But charities deserve help. Not businesses and aspiring businesses like the Gothamist.
why does it matter if gothamist is making a profit or not? and why would it matter if they're making a profit and profess otherwise? i'm not claiming that they do or do not, btw. i just don't see the point of why such conjecture matters. if you could flesh that out, that'd be great.
the criteria to me are: is gothamist interesting? are the ways that gothamist seeks to make a profit intrusive? do i enjoy visiting the site?
no one comes to gothamist for a point-of-view piece; most of what jen posts are links to other articles. but the articles tend to be interesting, and there's often an interesting discussion in the comments section. i always feel like i come away learning more about my city and my neighbors. i'm not expecting more. what is it that you're expecting? a mission statement? a statement of editorial/posting policy?
Because it the past and the present Jen and Jake continually play this game of declaring themselves journalists when the mood suits them and then rushing in retreat to the level of "Hey, this is all a hobby." when it suits them too. It's simply two-faced and deceptive.
And what's so bad about it? I think blogging attitudes like theres really degrade online journalism to the level of simply being a glorified gossip piublication. How does this hurt other writers? Easy. The more hack writers there are out there, the less work there is for professional writers who know the difference between news and gossip. What's really annoyin is that Gothamist is somehow upset that now others are writing about blog culture and they are not being invited. Whatever. Get over it. The New York Times piece makes some good and solid points and points out tons of the inanities that blog haters have been saying all along. You're upset that others have found similar flaws in the nepotistic blog world? Go grab a pint of ice cream and cry into your pillow. Blogs are finally getting lager attention in the mainstream media and the mainstream media is showing blogs for what they are warts and all.
And like I said about the Aeron chair nonsense, get a life. Your $500 chair broke. Boo fucking hoo. Most people out there can't afford such a piece of furniture and now Gothamist has the smug audacity to "reach out" to their readers for help. Who cares? Go out and drop another $500 on a chair. Or do like the rest of us and just go to Staples or Office Max and buy something that fits in your budget.
In response to "Confused"...
I don't care whether Gothamist is profitable or not---that's Jen's and Jake's and their partners' business, and I hope they ARE being rewarded for the work they put into their site.
But I DO think definitions count...to me, there's a difference between a personal journal, a public compilation of news gathered from other sources, and a newspaper or other work of original writing. Given that many of Gothamist's readers seem to have graduated from competitive schools, it's a distinction that most will remember and understand.
More thoughts after a run down the street to Starbucks.
To clarify...my comment about "competitive schools" wasn't meant to be elitist...it was meant to convey that Gothamist's readers should remember from their term paper days the importance of knowing the source of information and distinguishing between primary and secondary sources.
I think this becomes all the more important in an age when media overlap and feed each other, and authorship is sometimes vague (the government's production of newsfeeds; the Jason Blair and USA Today scandals). And Gothamist is clearly a media property at this point, in spite of being a sideline or hobby.
As far as mission statements go, it wouldn't be a bad thing...Jen mentioned discussion of a "business model" for Gothamist, and she and Jake have assumed the titles of Publisher and Executive Editor for themselves. Publishers and Executive Editors often state the goals of their publications and describe the audience they are meant to serve.
I posted once that the discussion of Gothamist's evolution reminded me of "Citizen Kane" and Kane's ("I think it would be fun to run a newspaper!") need to issue a statement of principles. I suspect Gothamist knows the scene well.
Again, Gothamist, good luck. You've clearly earned a loyal and lively readership!
um, real deal, i just to set the record straight on a couple of things that you mis-stated. if you just read jake's site or jen's sub-page, you'll learn that you were mistaken in your first comment. first, jake goes to NYU, and not columbia for bschool. second, jen isn't in pr, but in advertising.
just thought these were two rather obvious mistakes in your comment.
i'll reserve my thoughts on the rest of the stuff in this thread.
"first, jake goes to NYU, and not columbia for bschool. second, jen isn't in pr, but in advertising."
Tien, nice hair splitting. But it does not change the message. Jen works in advertising which is basically related to PR. And Jake goes to business school and while it's NYU a b-school major is still a b-school major.
And of course you will reserve judgement. You're part of Gothamist's inner-circle and if Jake's blog empire aspirations come to fruition, you don't want to sully any potential paycheck comeing your way. Good for you.
As for the rest of us, please realize that if Gothamist continues to be so wishy-washy on what they are--serious one moment, casual the next--you're just joing to get a rep for being a flaky, swishy gossip rag. Perhaps you don't care, but you're readers often enjoy most of Gothamist's posts but can stand the insidery-bullshit posts.
Boo-hoo again on the loss of an Aeron chair. I'm sure all of the temps out there who can't pay for their own health insurance are crying rivers of grief over the loss of a $500 dot-com chair.
i never said i wasn't splitting hairs. i was just correcting you on that one. actually, i reserve judgment because i honestly don't care that much. before i started helping out on gothamist and still now, i came for the content and the information that jen got from the media. and i'm not really doing this for the money, since i already have a job. that said, i wouldn't refuse payment on anything.
besides, where jen/jake take gothamist and whatever ideas they have is totally up to them, in my opinion. sure, they will have people with your thoughts, but so be it. nobody is forcing you to read it. if you hate how it's becoming, stop reading, that's it.
jesus christ, guy- everyone needs to take a deep breath and relax. after expenses, gothamist makes almost no money, and what money we do make goes into a paypal account to do things like sponsor little league teams and finance our tshirt printing expenses. odds are, that's all it will ever do. i don't know how many times i can say this, but here i go again: there are better businesses to be in than blogging. jen and i have put in hundreds or thousands of hours into this site- if we had taken a job at a pizzeria, we'd have made a hell of a lot more money than working at gothamist. but we don't love making pizza- we love talking and writing and taking pictures of new york, so that's why we are doing this. we love meeting people who are passionate about other cities- so that's why we're expanding the project to three or four other cities- not out of some grand scheme to make money.
on the very off chance that someone does see economic value in gothamist, or we start getting advertising that can really pay the bills, i'd take it in a second. why? because then i could pay people like tien to contribute, and buy a better server, and do stuff like that. do i plan to make my fortune on gothamist? don't be ridiculous. i've got other plans.
TheRealDeal, you're entitled to your opinion. You can build misguided assumptions on the little that you know, and that's fine. And in terms of making money, to compare us to Nick Denton is hilarious, because Jake and I both started this site, and have lost money on it (if you count the sweat equity of posting at the rate I do).
I don't consider myself a journalist, but rather a mutated variation on that note. Many papers reprint AP stories - does that devalue them? Jake and I do some original work (less recently, due to our work constraints), but Gothamist was never meant to be some lofty project. Gothamist grew out conversations with friends, emails where we'd send each other links. I certainly not breaking any stories, but maybe I'm telling someone about something they heard about, but didn't really know about, and then giving a little new insight or adding some humor.
You are right about us wanting Gothamist to be something more. But we don't know what that is yet. And we're not concerned whether it's grand or small - we just want to figure it out for ourselves. We're still figuring out how much fun we can have with it. Right now, it's been a great way for us to learn about new things and meet new people. And that's all I expect of it now, happily so.
TheRealDeal sure sounds like a "real" writer. Maybe he can show us some of his "real" work? No, of course he can't because he's really just a jealous, miserable, boring d*ckwad.
TRD, do you realize it's just you and maybe two others who are constantly trying to analyze what's going on in Jake/Jen's head and their "expansion" plans? What gives, are you a business-psych major or something? Please, work your issues out somewhere else.
If Gothamist loses readers like you (3? 4 of you?) because of some assumed "rep" then I'm sure they would hardly care. What a threat! Traffic will plummet! Investors drop like flies! You and your little treehouse club should just stick with the actual big media outlets. Gothamist isn't one. You are clearly too sensitive and fragile to be playing around here.