Rachelle Hruska, Dear (Or: "I Am Using Your Name In The Title Of This Post To Ensure The Words "Your Name" Appear Well-Regarded By Google")

Isn't the left-side beautiful? Writing something here is the difference in between climbing into a fluffy, cool, made bed, and laying your head to rest on a pile of angry, craggy rocks.

Anyway. I guess this is where I'm supposed to take the (Kosher-certified/Omaha) beef, right? I was going to wait a week to do this, but in a week this thing would be long gone (and thus, maybe, kinda new again). Two days after and now it's just tired, totally uninteresting, and something we've all moved on from. This is my version of totally burying a news cycle via quicksand effect. Of course, there's that other way of doing it, by just shutting the fuck up, but in the grand tradition of people who can't shut the fuck up (namely: everyone reading this), that's just not gonna to happen.

I've already said: I've had a great time. And if none of the involved parties enjoyed this, you are joyless, sad, and angry. There's been a lot of blood pressure raised over this! I got a stern talking-to in a clurrb! And I'm not going to get into who's "right" and who's "wrong," first, because the only people worth listening to about being right are - and forgive the Garrison Keeler-esque folksy shit here - people who are capable of admitting that they're wrong, who are also (like people who can shut the fuck up) in short demand around these parts. No, the only way to measure this thing is by who "won," and when I say "won," I mean, out of all the people I've interacted with in the last week, who has the lowest blood pressure that isn't plagued by pre-existing medical condition (hypotension, namely). I'm just going to start walking around with one of those portable monitors and being all like "Gimme your arm!" Creepy, yes, but also: statistically effective. And we know how I love me some stat porn (Nic will get this).

Anyway. Here's the email I sent to Rachelle Hruska, and the response I got back. I'm not linking shit. If you're here, you know what happened by now.

1. BlackBook definitely pays guest contributors (well-documented dispute with an in-breach freelancer aside).
2. Real talk: "Largely unpaid staff" is the quote I got from the Times, which you assured me time and time again was "real journalism" and then put me on blast for using that line as a source of information. If other "real journalism" needs to be called up and double-checked, how real is it? If the Times got the story right, they would've written about your "largely paid and cared for" staff and the "largely unpaid content" you receive from friendly contributors on the site. Right? What if I'm not the only reader who drew the conclusions from the Times piece that I did? Should they all call you, too?
3. Paying for writers and paying for journalism are two totally different things. I'm not paid for journalism. I'm paid to blog. Ask anybody at Gawker if they'd call themselves journalists; ask Nick if he'd call any of his writers journalists, I can't imagine he would. [I read the Howard Kurtz piece after writing this. In it, Denton notes that any journalism that happens at Gawker is incidental.] Would you call yourself a journalist? Anybody coming to Gawker for New York Times-level reportage might be a little off the mark (then again, Jayson Blair, so, you know, that whole thing) - they have an obligation towards liability. Gawker's been wrong before; as you said this morning, so have you. Now: let's say an organization only writes what they get straight from the subject (inherently biased in the subject's direction) without providing their readers with context or opinion. Then they're writing press releases and being a mouthpiece of the subject. And what's uglier: an outlet tethered to the information it gets from the subject (and nothing else) or one that can see around the interference the subject's going to post?
4. You blasted me for not calling you before I was going to run my piece. You didn't call me! :(
5. I wouldn't compare what I did to Fox News. Mean! I'm not exploitative and nor do I pride on hurting people; I'd call it ribbing at best and digging into at worst. Fox News is malicious. You know that.
6. You misspelled "plesant." I only care about this because it was the one nice thing I got said about me! Although, in all honesty, I'm probably more plesant than I am pleasant.

Other than that, you were definitely right about the following things:

1. "Populist demagoguery" is pretty much the name of the game with every Gawker Media site [especially those vigilant fucking gadget nerds]. That's what I get paid to do, though, that being said, it's not always the populist fire I'm feeding (sometimes, if you've ever read anything by Gawker's frightening weekend commenters, you'd see it's an anarchist minority. They're a readership worth worrying about). Also, what a phrase to use! Whether or not you give a shit about journalism, the writing is most definitely there. [Though I will say, the Sunday Styles specializes in a certain kind of dem-a-gog-ur-y, though most of their readers would think that's a new skin treatment.]
2. "As you know from the Times piece, I left a secure job in finance to take on tremendous risk and a drastic pay cut to build GofG. As it stands, the world we live in isn’t perfect and the income disparity between industries does not always seem “fair” or “right.” A discourse on the root of the problem is probably one that exceeds the scope of both your and my skill sets." (A) It's admirable, and I've said as much often, and (B) you're absolutely right on all counts here.
3. And as Rachel Sklar will be very quick to tell you, I'm still very much a beginner at this. You know this is my seventh weekend, right? I've done some pretty great things (most recently: scooped everyone on the sale of VSL to the Observer, on a Sunday, no quotes required. And I was right!), but when you're writing Gawker single-handedly, nine to thirteen posts a day, and trying to do it during the weekends, your ability to get quotes is limited. (Cajun Boy has the same problems at night [though he did manage to get ahold of the Megan Fox-fatkid-fan identifier!]; but the Gawker Manna From The Gods - the Sunday Times - isn't coming out for him every night). Does that mean I shouldn't write the stories? Shit, I hope not. In both cases, I could've gotten quotes from you and Sklar, and maybe I was wrong for not making a good faith attempt on both ends (though the situation with Sklar is TOTALLY different; she didn't have the information on you - the Times article - out there on her). So: I'm still learning. Isn't that nice, though? There're worse things than a guy who can take his licks and roll with 'em as lessons thereafter. Nice job. We can buy each other rounds 'next time. -f.

Her response to me, below. My comments in bold.

1. i was talking about their interns- i know a couple they are not paid WTF?
2."I understand how the line in the NYTimes article that described GofG as having a staff “largely unpaid” reads, however, your interpretation and understanding of this quotation is incomplete. This quotation, admittedly deserving clarification, attempts to convey the user-generated component of our content structure." id you read that? I did, but Hruska's the one comparing me to the "real journalism" of the Times that needs clairification. Also, funny aside, though: assuming you do pay four people, the Huffington Post only pays five. So you're still better than her.
3 this is much longer discussion
4.i posted on my wee tumblr, not a site that gets --what is it 22 million hit snow? Fuck if I know. Denton probably piles on the numbers anyway. I think he told Sharon Waxman over eggs that we're more read than Google, or something, and she believed it. Which is superb.
5. feelings have nothing to do with this-it's factss I first read that as "fatass," so maybe I'm just projecting. But yes, factss.
6. thank you i fixed and you are pleAsant:) For my first club-oriented altercation, you were as well. I fully expect Rachel Sklar to shake me out over a roof like Suge Knight next time, though.

Are we done?

Heart Of The City (Ain't No Love) - Jay-Z feat. The Roots