TVSquad

What's funny is that Kimmel, who's made a career out of his "beer-chugging lout" persona and spends his entire monologue quoting tabloids and making fun of celebrities, finds Gawker's ribbing of them so offensive. Talk about a hypocrite!

Reply

Bob,
I thought more about Jennifer Wilbanks as Gould when I saw that photo.

Reply

i don't like him, but Jimmy Kimmel is being hypocritical here. there's a difference between a talk show monologue and a blog that many people take as credible (the website even endorses the concept of "journalistic" quality coming from pedestrian sources.)

so when kimmel was given the job of hosting a discussion on the topic, he might be off base for getting a bit vicious but he is right to take her down. He is a comedian while she is a person "editing" a blog that is nothing more than hearsay gossip couched in pseudo-credibility (citizen journalists? you have got to be kidding!).

Reply

I'm personally very glad that CNN would give a celebrity an hour of their airtime to deal with their personal vendettas with celebrity gossip websites. Awesome! I'm glad this serious problem is getting the attention it deserves. Kudos to the Cable NEWS Network for not wasting time of stupid things.

Reply

Jimmy Kimmel is being a little bit of a hypocrite. On his show, his monologue is all about tabloid stories. He is making a good point because Gawker.com posts anything it gets without fact checking and making sure anything is truthful about the stories. The Gawker Stalker Map is a big mistake because there are a lot of weird stalkers out there.

Reply

I think it is important to just note that Gawker Media is a direct competitor (if we can call weblog networks 'competitors') to Weblogs, Inc. which owns Tvsquad... not that this story isn't still funny or true, but it's important that we "citizen journalists" remain hip to the facts! =P

Reply

There's a lot of deeper problems here and I think both Jimmy and the lady from Gawker are in the wrong.

First Jimmy is living in a fantasy world thinking that everything on the net should be fact checked. The internet has grown to such an amazing socially networked place that anyone who is anyone can get on and say whatever they want to say. Also, Jimmy is dreaming if he thinks that celebs have a right to privacy when they're in the public eye 24/7. I'm not saying whether that's right or wrong, but they've made their bed so they're going to have to sleep in it.

The comment about there being a bunch of lunatics waiting for the celeb to come out from wherever they are is ridiculous. With cell phones, info like this could be spread just as fast, and to infer that everyone who wants to see a celeb is a crazy madman that wants to stalk and kill them is outlandish and offensive to the American public.

On the other hand Gawker is doing this purely to make money and get the most amount of page views possible on their site. If you don't check your sources or facts then you shouldn't bill yourself as a place that does. Gawker is a kind of journalism called "yellow journalism" but they try to pass themselves off as credible journalists when they should just own up to what they are in the first place.

Reply

For the record, I don't think Jimmy Kimmel is "drunk all the time" from reading a Gawker news piece. That said, Jimmy's monologue often takes news bits sourced by some of the same folks that feed into the paparazzi press type blogs, such as Gawker and Perez Hilton

-- Oh, shout out to Perez Hilton who got his site mentioned on, what was it, CSI Las Vegas(?), this past week? (I don't want to prop that blog either, but any actual blog getting a mention in a prime time TV show is something --

But Jimmy did put on his investigator hat on and aired his beef, and that's that.

Life goes on.

Reply

I listened to this on XM radio and to be totally honest, if jimmy wasn't on a late night show he would have made a bold point.

i dont want to go so far as to day he is being hypocritical, because if Jimmy were to do jokes that wern't about things in the Media, would you even consider watching his show? Of course not.

Journalism for Money, and only money should be shunned and as unethical as things like scientists using human experiments in potentially fatal and unexcusable experiments.

Reply

Wait, so, Jimmy Kimmel is saying that she's going to hell as he's got Mark "Scott Peterson is an innocent man" Geragos sitting next to him? Oh, that's rich. REALLY credible people on your side, dude.

Reply

Does Jimmy Kimmel want to protect celebrities from dangerous stalkers, or does he want fact checking to ensure that the precise location of those celebrities can be posted for all the crazies to see?

I'm not really a fan of either party here, but I have to feel some sympathy for Emily Gould, just because I think she got blindsided by this interview and is faced with three guys telling her she's going to get sued and then go to hell for running a website.

http://popculturejunk.blogspot.com/

Reply

I found Emily's reaction hilarious.
Apparently, she needs time to think up witty things to say. She made some good points but her head shaking and eye widening made her look completely incompetant to respond to and defend her website.

It was disappointing.

Reply

Kimmel channelled O'Reilly quite well by getting the last diatribe in before shutting the guest down.

Reply

There is a big difference between satire and journalism. When Jimmy Kimmel makes a joke about celebrities there is no expectation that it is true or is news. It is not the same thing as reporting.

Reply

It's about time somebody called out these people. This obsession with celebrities is sickening (and yes, Kimmel shouldn't rely on making fun of celebrities so much).

Reply

It's so scary to see this woman act so ignorant about what she's doing with this site. Through all her cutesy faces and giggles, does she eally not understand how dangerous and reprehensible it is to stalk other people- regardless of their celebrity status.

Reply

Does anyone seriously consider Gawker to be serious journalism? I've been reading it since the beginning, and it's always been crystal clear to me that *everything* posted there is meant to be taken with a grain of salt, at least.

Reply

The point is his show is a talk show about jokes that are true or are reported as truth with a joke added. Her website is supposed to be newsish and and she calls it journalism and it's just a bunch of lies.

Reply

Why on earth would anyone believe, for a second, that a website called "Gawker.com" would be a site for serious journalism? I'm not saying she's absolved of her idiocy, because I've always found the whole idea of Gawker (and similar sites) to be ridiculous at best, but c'mon... they are what they are. And everybody knows this, including the hypocritical Jimmy Kimmel.

Reply

Mrs. Gould was hilarious. I never saw such wild facial expressions. I don't know which is more incredulous: Her head shaking and widened cross-eyed expressions?.... or Mark Geragos and Jimmy Kimmel slamming this woman? Maybe Scott's wife would be alive today if this gawker-stalker map was up and running in Oakland/Berkeley marina....

Reply