So, Jezebel and I called it quits about a year ago after the start of what I thought could be a promising relationship. The reason for this was, of course, the Thinking and Drinking debacle. However, recently, I picked back up the affair where I had left off, and found the site to be much more appetizing. Sure, it's still first and foremost a site run under a regime of gossip. But pop culture's pervasity makes it a topic worthy of exploring, and I think for the most part Jezebel does it well. The feminist tinge and the Gawker-mandated quantity of posts make for some interesting reading. I have been turned onto a lot of women doing great work through Jezebel, and been alerted to a lot of things relevant to a young feminist. Long story short, it's not so much the quality of content on Jezebel I'm objecting to, it's the weird class structure under which it operates.
In other words....it's still Gawker. And being Gawker, it's got some really creepy-ass habits that I just can't seem to get past. I was weirded out enough by the fact that commenters had to "audition" for the privilege of commenting. But, I didn't comment on Jezebel anyway, nor did I have any immediate plans to, so it didn't really bother me. However, I am big on reading comment threads, and with their recent introduction of "starred" or "featured" commenters and their "best comments of the day" feature, I noticed a trend that is either alarming or just really, really stupid.
In one such thread, a new commenter who had just been "accepted" that week got "nominated" (I'm sorry for the excessive quotes, but I just can't take this shit seriously) for a best comment of the day. And she was completely, unironically thrilled about it. What's more, is that the other commenters on the thread were alternately pleased for or jealous of her. I'll be honest - I was weirded out. I mean, on the one hand, at least women were being recognized for the content of their minds (keyboards?) as opposed to their looks, but the adulation all seems a bit unnecessary. Are we that hungry for attention that we can't even comment on a news story without needing some sort of validation for doing so?
This, however, I still could have overlooked. But last week, changes to the entire Gawker commenting structure were implemented that take the commenting heirarchy to a new level of absurdity. Now, one not only has to audition for the privilege of commenting and hopefully be rewarded for their efforts with "stars" or "followers," but, if their comments aren't deemed worthy, they are actually hidden from the main screen. Comments that are witty/relevant/insightful ("featured comments") are shown on the main screen; comments that are, presumably lame/apropos of nothing/boring ("unfeatured comments") are hidden from the main screen and, when displayed, appear only in grey.
What kind of Orwellian world is this? I get that new media is still evolving, but the fact that a moderately respectable women's site needs to stoop to these level - "promoting" and "demoting" commenters according to their wit and cleverness - seems worthy of some deeper introspection on the part of the editors and their readers. I'm not sure I would call it antifeminist - mostly because I would feel like an idiot using a serious term on such a vapid topic - but it does seem at least, a bit inhumane, and at most, patently ridiculous. If I am just being crotchety before my time let me know, but as a young feminist who is very turned off by these antics by a women's site who seems to want to be taken seriously, I want to hear what the rest of you fellow Feministing/Jezebel readers (and commenters) think.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Holy Shit. Gawker is creepy..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15062
Wow, that really is creepy. For some reason I've never been that into Jezebel, so I didn't know it had a funky commenting system like that.
I actually think that's a great idea. It's their site, they can do whatever they want, and this cuts back on trolling and idiots. Compare, for instance, comment threads elsewhere.
I know Jezebel's feminism-lite at times, but it's also mainstream, and having a source this well-known and well-trafficked that's receptive to feminism is a big positive.
You are taking all this wayyyyyyy too seriously. It's a website. Furthermore, it's their website and they can do whatever they like. The "auditioning" stops spambots and idiots from being able to comment.
How is this a feminist issue?
This doesn't sound like simply preventing trolls to me. This sounds very elitist, and extreme; and could possibly be damaging to someone's self esteem. A good competition is one thing, but over comments? Give me a break.
If someone has self-esteem so fragile that their comments not showing up on a website is a shattering blow, I feel like there are much bigger problems.
I hate Jezebel's "You need to do some stupid shit before your comments actually *appear*" policy.
I don't know why they insist upon it, when their sister sites don't...
I was pretty perplexed when they brought in the new commenting system, and even disappointed -- Jez might be feminism-lite, but they do often have quite insightful cultural analysis essays and the comment section didn't seem to need such bizarre elitist modding practices.
Anyway, it turns out it's all about page views. The commenter community actually form a very small part of the blog's readership and the Gawker people reckon its blogs will attract more general readers by having them see the best comments and not the chit-chat. Can sort of see where they're coming from, don't know if it'll really work. But essentially they don't give a toss what happens to the commenting community, it's all about the moolah ...
Yeah, I think it was to cut down on the chatting. It seems like a lot of the jezebel commenters are friends in real life, or at least blog buddies and hang out and have inside jokes, and would talk communicate with each other in the posts. I read Deadspin too, and this wasn't as apparent an issue so I wonder if the Jezebel situation prompted the overhaul. I'm kind of happy for it...the "@so-and-so hahahaha"s were starting to add up a bit too much for me.