It's also disgusting that he's STILL seen hanging out around Chicago schools for young groupies.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/08/bts.rowlands.manson/index.html

Wow. To imply that she is actually doing Britney good is also assuming that the readers are morons. She tells her employees to compliment her and that's supposed to make the company good and everyone else bad? I love how she distinguishes her company as a photography agency while labeling others paparazzi. You can't have a company go mainstream off sleazy acts and then give an interview like this.

My #1 problem with Gawker Media is how much (even though little) the bloggers get paid for posting pictures or links or things sent in by readers without compensating their readers ever. In addition to that, the bloggers can write well but rarely add anything worth the clicks because they need to put out as many posts as possible to pay rent (and I'm not going to pretend to believe they don't live well)..it's the readers that add the most entertainment and commentary. So once in a while the Denton machine pays for a source that makes the company tons more..this is not the problem with journalistic 'ethics'..the problem is 'journalists' feel like their getting information from people actually making news is their work alone. It's unethical to pay someone for their insight, words, experience once it proves to be credible? The whole structure of the journalism business falls short of being ethical in the first place.

Of course there are Gawker sites that do more than copy pasting, picture posting, etc...Consumerist: helping people not get screwed by businesses, posting recalls, giving financial advice. Lifehacker: Trapani actually writes codes for readers to get the most out of Firefox, software tips, endlessly making your life better. Wonkette: hardcore political reporting. Fleshbot: hardcore porn, endlessly making your life better.

The bottom line is someone small always gets screwed so you can make money off simple news and when it's not news, it's Slut Machine posting clips of the Golden Girls because her readers will flock to it to scream about how much they love Bea Arthur..ensuring she'll at least get a nice lunch out of it. Will Bea Arthur be compensated? Or the person who first posted the clip on YouTube? And why are the clips posted via Gawker's mysteriously simplistic video player and not the embedding of the YouTube clip? There's something wrong over there but it's not the rare compensation to sources..it's that these people call themselves bloggers, even journalists, and live with themselves every day.