There's two shocking things regarding this news item about how political operative and "pollster" Mark Penn's company sprang into action to pitch to new clients on the back of the topics mentioned in Penn's Wall Street Journal column. One: that it's been up for two hours and the Journal hasn't fired Penn yet. Two: is that it's been two hours and it only has 2446 pageviews. I guess Gawker is sort of working on the HBO model-like how HBO documentary films head Sheila Nevins is always explaining how "Cathouse" and "Real Sex" essentially pays for documentaries about Iraq and poor people and stuff. So: their no-sex sex tapes pay for actual real things! Yay, I guess! Go read it! Which leads to another question: Why are a bunch of us running around saying that "news is the killer product" as a business model if actually maybe it's not? Ruh roh. In conclusion: Mark Penn sucks.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
4
I've been thinking the same thing about Gawker. Like how they can really be paying John Cook is pageviews aren't even close to the others? And its like when Jesse (or got sent away) and it was all "This kind of coverage doesn't fit the model."
Maybe they don't want to look like they're firing him because of Gawker?
ALSO "glamping" is the worst fake word in the world.
Mark Penn went to the Ben Stein School of Ethical Fake Journalism.
I think the indignation is naive and the suggestion that no one knew or expected that Penn's firm would 'leverage' his column is, well...what's the word for naivete that's more naive than naive? Infantile, maybe?