Owen Thomas Lands At KNTV Digital From Valleywag; Starts May 26th

Owen Thomas, who introduced me to the great libations at what was once Moose's in North Beach during the Valleywag Friday happy hours of a few positive GDP growth cycles back, then left the helm of that Gawker-run tech gossip site, has landed on his feet at KNTV Digital, according to "Broadcasting & Cable".

Reportedly, Thomas will manage the NBC Bay Area website, nbcbayarea.com, but I'd guess absent the interesting, biting, and at times down right wild commentary that spared no one. 

Well, almost on one. He and the other Gawker staffers had this soft spot for Internet celebrity Julia Allison. But I digress.

 

Owen Thomas with Julia Allison Hanging On

The Friday meetups stopped well before Thomas depature, but knowing him I'm sure something close to what used to be will materialize. But I say "congratulations, Owen!" The next one's on me!

And on a personal note thanks for the tips!

Sarah Palin's I.Q. Record Rejected By Nick Denton At Gawker

Thanks to my friend Oreo at DemConWatchBlog for bringing this to my attention.  Nick Denton over at Gawker conducted at analysis of the alledged  Palin "academic records" that have been buzzing around the blogsphere at a rapid pace,  and in this blog, and determined they were false.  

He based his decision on a careful look at the way the documents were assembled.  Great work.  But it calls into question what can be trusted.  For example, this information was placed on a giant listserv and sent out to thousands of people. Now, it's left to me to send out a corrective, but the damage is done.

In a way I'm glad because it means I don't have to take any heat for asserting in my video that Palin is clever enough to fashion an exit strategy beyond the campaign.  I still believe she's positioning herself for a run at the Alaska Senate seat currently held by Lisa Murtowski, but when I presented why many commented that Palin could not be "bright enough" to do that.  

I disagee. 

Emily Gould's "Sex And The City" Quote Points To Bay Area

Emily Gould just offered a quote in her blog Emily Magazine, and from the Sex and The City Movie that made me think of the San Francisco Bay Area.

Here's the quote:

“Why does Odysseus stay so long with Circe? And why, having stayed so long, does he finally leave? Why do we always stay too long in relationships we know aren’t good for us? Sometimes there’s a complicated tango of neediness and unavailability going on. Other times, it’s because those relationships are with witches who have turned us into pigs.”

I can't think of a few people I know who fall into this quote as a model, well couples. It seems here it's a kind of weird divide between single and mated -- married or not -- and not happy in either case. It's the total lack of communication, I say. Too many people who don't know how to take off their iPods when it matters most -- and no, that's not when it's not working,

What? Well, my point is that iPod's keep people from hearing things, like police sirens, or bus horns, or someone elses voice. In all cases the person is plainly disconnected. That means they lose the practice of talking. Just plain banter is lost. That forms the basis for good relationships.

Emily Gould Attacks Gawker and "Henry" But Give Her A Break

Emily, originally uploaded by m_d_portela.

Emily Gould was invited to write a first-person essay which appeared in the NY Times Magazine with a cool photo of Emily on its cover. No big deal to me, but it's caused a firestorm of criticism mostly aimed at the NYTimes itself for being, well, capitalist in trying to gain commenters for its new blog system.

But I think what's missing here are two things. First, is what I will call the struggle of mainstream media to have some influence and say in the blogsphere. Second, there's Emily's very revealing attack on Gawker.





I just read her entire post -- it's long; perhaps 20,000 words or so -- and what I came away with was that, 1) she broke the heart of her now-ex boyfriend Henry who she made read like someone who's afraid of success and was good for nothing except growing out of, and 2) that she essentially jumped into a relationship with a guy -- Gawker blogger Josh Stein -- who she worked with who didn't really "get" her like Henry did, but was able to convince her to spread her legs on cue, 3), she totally hated the Gawker Culture (but not its people) but worked her way into it because she was slowly becoming like Julia Allison, who's attention seeking personality Gould claims to dislike, but only because it's really the completion of what Emily was becoming (and since they're friends, arguably has become - see photo), and 4) Emily needs a new Mac as the one she's using is really old. I think about five years old at least.





Of course, getting wrapped up in all that totally causes one to miss the bird's eye view of things. In this case, from the air there are a lot of people really pissed off about what Jezebel blogger "Moe" -- who's a friend of Emily's -- called a "masterbatory" blog.

It was. Writing the line "Josh and I sat together on the couch, and I put my head on his shoulder in a completely friendly, professional way" made Moe and me LOL, because there's no fucking way that one could even think of such an action as either just friendly or professional. But I'm sure it gave Emily much quasi-sexual pleasure to write that. But what's not a feel-good moment is the reaction to Gould's work.

Rachel Skalar at the Huffington Post just plain unloads on Emily , taking her to the woodshed for being so, well, self-revealing. Rachel ties together every negative blog and article on Emily's "Exposed" Times work, and leaves no whipping lash unused. Rachel's point -- again -- is that there are more interesting topics than the musings of a self-absorbed blogger with boyfriend problems.

What I find totally facinating about all of the crying and whining about Emily's NYTimes blog is that people are complaining that people are reading about this; Let's face it, no one's forcing us to do so. Rachel read it -- so did thousands of others. People don't seem to get that they like to read about other people. We're voyeurs. Period. Bravo that the NY Times and NYTimes Mag Editor Gerry Marzorati recognizes that -- I guess. Of course, it could have been the happy accident of some editor there -- perhaps Gerry Marzorati -- who thinks Emily's hot. I was about to write we'll never know, but in this "new revealling media" society, I take that back. We'll find out at some point in time.

Do we care? Yes. The simple proof of this shows up in the numbers. Not just for Emily, but on a smaller scale for what -- for example -- I wrote for the San Francisco Chronicle. A revealing article on a defense mechanism I used to deal with subtle racism I call my "Iron Man" suit. In writing it I discovered I gave a voice to many people who felt like me. And let's face it, we like feedback and appreciation; it's a drug that has all of us under its spell.

So what?

I think we're seeing the seeds of why some people don't succeed in new media on a personal level. One does have to be comfortable with a certain degree -- a high level -- of self-revelation. Either by the person or someone else.

What's funny is that no one is free from this, and choosing not to blog is no escape -- just ask Henry. I'm sure somewhere, he's hating every word of Emily's article as he plays a major part in it, and just because of his former association with her.

Welcome to the 21st Century. Eventually, therapists will have to properly sooth clients who's lives were exposed by some wayward blogger working for or starting their own media company. It's more the norm than you think.





And if that's scary to you, I'm glad to get your attention because this new, revealing world of masterbatory blogging also has a sibling called "masterbatory video-blogging" both draw eyeballs, but there's something baserly attractive about seeing a video of someone talking about themselves or doing something either completely stupid or sexy or interesting. Plus, we have videos of people being caught doing something completely stupid or sexy or interesting, and its those works that get the most attention -- and that leads to money.

The eyeball economy meets "Masterbating Emily" - film at 11, Emily in metallic bikini.

Valleywag's Paul Boutin Exposes Gawker Media Pay Scale System

Apparently upset that Gawker Media is reducing it's payments to writers, Paul Boutin has elected to expose the dark underbelly of a system that compenstates its bloggers. Here's that description in full below:

Gawker Media dark overlord Nick Denton (pictured) has launched a new pay system for all Gawker Media blogs, after testing it at four of his leading sites. Denton's goal is to discourage "self indulgent" posts and "mind-numbing frequency" in favor of "linkworthy material, by which I mean a secret memo, a spy photo, a chart, a well-argued rant, a list, an exclusive piece of news, a well-packaged find." Where does a self-indulgent secret memo fit on that axis? I guess we'll find out after the jump.

From: Noah Robischon Subject: Editor Newsletter - 2008 Preview Edition Date: December 31, 2007 11:42:12 AM PST
In January, as you've no doubt heard, Gawker editorial is introducing a new bonus system. While your base monthly pay remains the same, the chance of a bonus will depend on your individual performance. More specifically: it will depend on the popularity of your posts that month. Below, an explanation of the background to the move; why now; and how the new system works.

1. BACKGROUND

It's only on the internet that a writer's contributions can be measured. At newspapers, a reporter's reputation depends on the opinion of their editors, which can be fickle. Some people get on because they play the office politics well. Or simply because they're more aggressive in lobbying for more prominent jobs, or pay increases.

Advertising people say that the internet is special, because the audience's engagement is so much more measurable than that of newspaper readers, or television viewers. Which makes it so bizarre that most writers, on the internet as in print, are paid for the sheer brute quantity of their output.

Gawker has been equally backward. Sure, we pioneered the pageview bonus system, which rewards all writers for a site's performance. But, let's be honest: those bonuses have been allocated subjectively. And, in the large, writers have been rewarded, at $12 a post, for mind-numbing frequency. When we've paid a higher rate (the $200 "feature" rate) we've often not been rewarding better pieces; merely encouraging the padding of perfectly good, short items.

In short, we have repeated the bad habits of traditional media organizations: leaving remuneration to the arbitrary will of upper management; and, by treating words as if they were Soviet steel output targets, encouraging quantity over quality.

2. WHY NOW

Early on in the commercial blog era, frequency was the key to the success of a site: Engadget took a lead because it churned out 24 posts a day while Gizmodo, fearful of overwhelming its audience, stuck to a dainty dozen items. We learnt that lesson, and vowed never to be out-produced again. But we now really are reaching the limits of sheer volume. Readers can't take any more. And the proliferation of blogs, and social news services such as Digg, has changed the rules.

Where there was a shortage of attitude and commentary, there's now a surfeit. And what's in heavy demand, and short supply, is linkworthy material, by which I mean a secret memo, a spy photo, a chart, a well-argued rant, a list, an exclusive piece of news, a well-packaged find. Gina showed on Lifehacker, with the style of feature she pioneered a couple of years ago, that it was possible to grow a site's audience without endlessly increasing the number of posts.

Second, our objective is not merely to provide gratification for a writer, or amusement for their pals, but to appeal to the wider readership of a site, and to new readers who might discover it through Digg or Google or some other link. It's fine to pen the occasional self-indulgent or self-referential item. But we're not going to waste the editorial budget on them, when we're investing so heavily in the sites. We need a more efficient form of bonus compensation — and one that's fair to the writers who care most about their readers.

Third, the market for editorial talent is becoming more competitive. If a writer works like hell, or sparkles, we always run a risk: that somebody outside the organization notices before the news trickles up the management hierarchy. We need a mechanism to reward hard work, and stardom — to dispense pay increases automatically, if you will.

3. HOW IT WORKS

For several months now, we've displayed the number of views each item receives. It's not a perfect measure. The view count does not reflect attention paid to the posts on the front page; nor photo galleries (which are usually junk views anyhow); and it can overstate the value of cheap items with superficial appeal, but which damage a site's reputation. Nevertheless, it's the best measure we have, so we're going to use it to calculate bonuses.

From now on, you will be paid a set monthly fee. This is the total amount of money outlined in your editorial agreement or determined between you and your site lead. The era of counting posts that are worth $12 or $200 is over. You will be expected to contribute a set number of posts each month in exchange for your monthly base pay.

On top of your monthly base pay, you will be eligible for a bonus based on the number of pageviews your posts receive each month. This total includes any pageview on any story with your byline that was read during the month, even if the story is months or years old. You can track your monthly total here: (Click your site name in the rollup data section along the very top of the page).

Each site will be assigned a pageview rate, which is the dollar amount that each 1,000 pageviews on the site is worth. Although this sounds similar to an advertising CPM, this number has nothing to do with your site's revenue or advertising value. At the end of the month, if the money you earn in pageviews exceeds your monthly base pay, you will be paid the extra money as a bonus.

This chart should make it clearer. If your site has a PV rate of $5:
$2,000 = 400,000 views:
$5,000 = 1m views:
$7,000 = 1.4m views

Based on this example, if your base pay is $2,000 per month then you would need to get upwards of 400,000 pageviews to begin earning bonus. A total of 500,000 views would earn $500 bonus (or $2,500 total pay).

Your site lead will be able to tell you the pageview rate for your site, and give you a chart like this one to for calculating bonus.

For the majority of sites, there is no cap on the amount of bonus you can earn each month. Four sites are already using the new bonus system (Gawker, Wonkette, Gizmodo and Defamer). One guest editor on Wonkette landed a huge exclusive and walked away with an extra $3k in his paycheck.

-Rules Of The Road-

* The pageview rate for each site will change at the beginning of each quarter. It cannot be changed at any other time.

* This bonus will replace all other bonuses that now exist.

* Site leads do not take part in this system. They are still measured on overall site performance.

* The site lead has the right to revoke pageviews on any post. This is to guard against the publication of material that may be inappropriate or illicit, and we hope it is never necessary.

The site leads have more detailed information about all of this, and can share specific numbers for your site to give you a better sense of how your pageviews will translate into bonus.

Please send questions to so that we can round them all up and answer for everyone.

All best,
- Noah and Nick