Right, but it does raise a rather important problem that's only being selectively addressed at this point - each new Kinja blog raises a giant, WTF question mark as to its point and purpose for everyone except those who happened to come across it on the first day.
If you want people to stop asking (here and elsewhere), is there any reason why Kinja can't incorporate an "About this Kinja" page somewhere? A question mark? A FAQ page? An auto-blurb at the bottom of each post that says "Disputations is an internal blog for Gawker employees that we're making externally visible for some reason, and if you don't like it you can fuck right off."?
I understand Denton's ethos appears to be to seek out and destroy all context on the internet, but I fail to see how this is doing anything except confusing and pissing off your users.
This is a good question (and that blurb is a pretty good blurb for Disputations). Part of the problem is that some of these sub-blogs (like this one) are built for experimentation, and their point and purpose haven't been settled yet—and a problem on top of that problem is that experimental/offhand posts from them are currently being pulled up into the sidebars with the regular front-page content, which implies a certain amount of context that may be inaccurate. These are, I hope, aspects of the experiment that will be addressed.
Thanks! Feel free to use it.
But we need to know more about what David Carr thinks about what Gawker thinks about what Gawker thinks about
Of course, by writing about the Gawker coverage, I’m implicated even as I cluck my tongue, obsessing over someone obsessing over someone else’s sexuality; it feels icky and very meta at the same time. I made quite a few phone calls mulling it over and talking with people, trying to understand if I was pointing at a problem or just becoming part of it.
David Carr is a respected media critic whose opinions people take seriously.
How come the GOP never had a rentboy scandal era like the Tories is the real question.