Emily Gould, Exposed in NYT Magazine

[cutout]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/magazine/25internet-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin

I don't read Gawker so I had to keep Googling people and events from this article, which was deemed important enough to be at the top of the NYT Magazine queue. I'm beginning to think this girl might be kinda sorta insecure or in need of validation, or possibly not a great journalist -- I'm interested what the FOTs think.

Not to mention:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2-avakrRUaU

(Sorry if if this has already been discussed)

[John Junk 2.0]

I skimmed the first page of that and it seemed to be going nowhere, then I noticed it was 11000, I mean 10, pages long.  WTF!

Someone posted that interview already.
Laurie was pro-gawker. 
Dudes came on the Kimmel side mostly, though most agreed that it was a neck-to-neck douche-off if memory serves.

[KickTheBobo]

that article (and the subsequent links to it) reaches a critical mass of recursive self-importance to such an extent that physicists will be working towards a formula to describe it for decades to come.

[Shaggy 2 Grote]

I am completely confused as to how this is even a news story.  Isn't there any Obama disinformation left to plumb?

Although I did tell some non Best-Show-listening friends that it only took the first few paragraphs of the piece for Gould to "choogle her way into my hate pit."  So, you know, getting a couple more Best Show memes out there.

[Beth]

Jeepers, that article put me to sleep. I made it 3 pages and had to stop. This woman is seriously self-absorbed.

[John Junk 2.0]

Okay, now I read the second to last page.  This is what I pieced together from all the various scraps: She likes blogging about her personal life and also had the job at gawker and as gawker got huger her personal blog got bigger and her boyfriend got mad and it ruined her relationship, and she resigned from gawker, for that and other reasons (like Jimmy Kimmel yelling at her) and now she's dealing with the aftermath of that by writing a ten-page article about her personal life and blogging practices for the New York Times.   I always think, if you end up hurting someone's feelings by sharing personal details about them with a lot of people, the best way to kind of make peace with that is to divulge even more details in one of the most prominent, most widely distributed, publications on earth.

[cutout]

(Just wanted to clarify that I find none of the Gould stuff interesting with a capital I, just 'interesting' in the sense that she's making a public spectacle of herself while compensating for the other spectacle she made of herself at Gawker. KickTheBobo's graphic explains everything. It's a symptom of the early internet age, revealing the worst about everyday people who crave attention and a storied life but take it way way way too far)

[Laurie]

I am completely confused as to how this is even a news story.

A newsworthy article is the rare exception in the NYT Magazine.

If you'll indulge me, allow me to self-correct: An article worthy of reading is the rare exception in the NYT Magazine.

IT USED TO BE GOOD. 

[Martin]

Thanks for summing it up, JJ. I read the first page of that article and was completely confused.

This is all about Generation Me, isn't it?

[bruce]

Just read the first paragraph and skip to the comments. They are more entertaining then anything she was saying.

[Denim Gremlin]

oh, I read the subject as Elliot Gould, exposed.

this is boring

[Shaggy 2 Grote]

I am completely confused as to how this is even a news story.

A newsworthy article is the rare exception in the NYT Magazine.

If you'll indulge me, allow me to self-correct: An article worthy of reading is the rare exception in the NYT Magazine.

IT USED TO BE GOOD. 

It's still OK sometimes.  That recent Rob Walker piece about resurrecting dead brands was interesting, if horrifying.

[yesno]

It's still OK sometimes.  That recent Rob Walker piece about resurrecting dead brands was interesting, if horrifying.

It was amusing, but it annoyed me to no end (I took a trademark class last fall) that they didn't mention two facts about trademarks in the US:  (1)  If you stop using one, it's abandoned.  You don't get to warehouse them.  (2)  You can't sell a trademark, only the business or "good will" associated with it, which the trademark can follow. 

Seems kind of arcane, but all I was thinking was that someone should start a business that just digs up old abandoned trademarks and just starts using them.  What the hell.  No need to pay some random company.

[Shaggy 2 Grote]

OK, but with intellectual property being the issue it is in this country, don't you think there would be a lot of cease & desist letters and frivolous (corporate-initiated) lawsuits against this hypothetical company if it  ever started making a profit?   The law may be on the trademark-freegans' side, but that hasn't meant much in other contexts, as far as I know...

[yesno]

OK, but with intellectual property being the issue it is in this country, don't you think there would be a lot of cease & desist letters and frivolous (corporate-initiated) lawsuits against this hypothetical company if it  ever started making a profit?   The law may be on the trademark-freegans' side, but that hasn't meant much in other contexts, as far as I know...

Oh yeah, you'd be hassled left and right.  The reason I'm not a businessman, is that I would start a business just to prove a point.

There are cases where businesses have lost their trademarks because of abandonment, but it's always in the context of them suing someone for infringement, and the "infringer" defending and winning on the basis that the original trademark doesn't exist anymore.

The theoretical basis for this is that trademark is supposed to be a consumer protection scheme, whereby people are not misled as to the source or origin of products.  They last forever as long as that association is there.  If you just sell the name to someone, they're a new source that has no more right to the trademark than anyone else.  And if you don't make the product anymore, the trademark has outlived its purpose.*


*There is some argument that a well-remembered, but unused trademark should not be considered abandoned.    Like if Ford stopped making cars for 10 years, it would probably be confusing for someone else to start using the name for cars.  But this is all unsettled.