Bully Magazine takes exception to narcissistic bloggers, and Elizabeth Spiers of our Gawker site, in particular. Quite the most amusing takedown of Gawker to date, especially the timeline: a forecast of Elizabeth's growing disenchantment with the shallow media world, followed by redeeming love, and the move to New Jersey.
   But one comment jumped out at me. Bully describes Gawker as painfully naive. Don't they get it? The appeal of weblog media is its embrace of the mundane. New York's rich people are ludicrous. Hipsters do wear silly hats.
   There are two classes of people who shy away from the obvious. First, the washed-out reporter, who's seen it all, and says, whenever a young editor suggests an idea: oh, we've done that before. The others: insecure insiders, so desperate to prove their status that they talk over everyone's heads. So, yes, naive. Why do you think we called it Gawker?
Blahg, blahg, blahg: The Times Picks Up on a Bully Story, Six Months Late [Bully Magazine]