Wow. I had never thought about how Gawker affects celebrities (that could be because I never think about Gawker) but Jimmy Kimmel made me do so for the first time and in the process, won my sympathy.
Wow. I had never thought about how Gawker affects celebrities (that could be because I never think about Gawker) but Jimmy Kimmel made me do so for the first time and in the process, won my sympathy.
Huh, that clip had just the opposite effect on me ( I saw it yesterday or maybe the day before, it's all a blur these days). He seemed pretty whiny for a guy who makes fun of ("throws rocks at") celebrities nightly on his Jimmy Kimmel Live show, he appeared nightly with a beer constantly in his hand on The Man Show, come on Jimmy! Get a skin! How is Gawker Stalker any more dangerous than some random person calling their psycho friend on their cell phone and saying "Kimmels in Penn Station, get over here and bring some heavy rocks!)? Of course money insulates celebrities! He has enough to hire a freaking private helicopter, why is he in Penn Station catching a train? The Dalai Lama excluded, what celebrity doesn't have money? What a hypocrite, the guy's cutting a new contract with ABC for his show plus he's set to host a new game show for that network. How many million do you think that will earn him? Enough to maybe hire a bullet-proof limo and a few bodyguards? Plus he kept cutting Ms. Gould off mid sentence and never really let her make her points. Add to it that those suspenders were ridiculous on him and I'm left seeing him as a squinty-eyed nasally super rich baby weasel.
O.K. I admit it. I'm just jealous because he's seeing Sarah Silverman. Rrroww.
AH.com response: I feel like 1) pointing at celebrities' wealth as reason for them to have to endure lies, hate and stones hurled at them and that 2) wealth can protect people from most everything is completely absurd. The first part implies celebrities aren't just people, which of course they are and number 2 is like saying money makes people happy is of course a ridiculous fallacy.
Posted by: Hasan at April 11, 2007 1:25 PMIt's an interesting idea. Part of being a public figure is being... public. It's interesting that GS pushes the limits so far, though. I'm not really sure how I feel about it. Part of me wants to say "you're popular and it's not your server... suck it up", but it also seems kind of fundamentally impolite. Maybe if they had some sort of Stalkee Opt-Out form :)
Anyway, remind me to never hire Emily Gould as my PR person. She got steamrolled.
Posted by: Mark at April 12, 2007 1:44 PMwow.
that made me not like Kimmel
for the first time.
it's a fact of life that as your fame grows,
so does your notoriety and
just as you may enjoy the fruits,
so too you are increasingly subject to scrutiny
the generation gap has never seemed more apparent.
he didn't "get" gawker at all...regardless of how good it is now (or when it began), gawker will get and deserve its success based on its ability to attract and maintain visitors.
advertising on the web is no small cha-ching.
Kimmel surprises me, and your sympathies as well...
But, I am appreciative for the post.