Gawker media is really nothing more than a bunch of snarky half-assed meta-analysis of other people's work. The formula for a Gawker article is this:
1) Snarky Cool Headline that Includes the Words Because or Rapey :
2) Opening paragraph in which the analyzer (they are not an author since very little of the text is original) summarizes a recent event/article/Peyser/VICE in a semi-snarky manner and proposes to take a deep look a the shortcomings/hypocrisy of the subject
3) Block of text lifted from the article
4) "Analysis" and reframing for the echo chamber of commenters (I'm looking at you Jezebel.)
Alternate steps 3 and 4
5) Summary that does end well.
Gawkers imagine themselves to be a part of some Internet Algonquin Round Table, each vying to be pithier than the last. Most commenters are late for their "Hannah Montana: The dual role of Class, Weed and Sexuality in the Disney Empire." (BTW I'll be teaching this course in the Fall and SUNY Yonkers.) And then there are the Kinja blogs, or whatever they are. They are the echo chambers of the sycophantic second string - reinforcing the views of the main pages and their analyzers.
Then there is Clashtalk. Clashtalk is different: It is the meta analysis of the meta analysis. A fourth dimension of devoid of the original and the meta-analysis. Or is Clashtalk simply another blog full of commenters with nothing to do at work and frustrated writing ambition?
Only time will tell.