The long-rumored, much-anticipated (in the blogosphere, anyway) New Yorker profile on Nick Denton is out this week and geez is it long. Ten thousand words long to be exact. And yet in all those ten thousands words I’m not convinced writer Ben McGrath reveals a whole lot of new information about the man behind the Gawker empire beyond that the MSM has finally come round to thinking the “evil, soulless, Machiavellian puppeteer” (as he is often caricatured, according to the New Yorker) is now a sort of respectable voice of wisdom regarding the future of media.

Advertising

Interestingly in a 10,000 word piece about the man who defined online snark and sharply barbed gossip there is little of the same aimed at Denton. The closest McGrath gets to revealing anything gossip worthy about Denton is a series of gentle gabs provided by friends and former employees aimed at describing Denton as he really is.

“He’s not, like, a sociopath, but you kind of have to watch what you’re doing around him,” Ricky Van Veen, the C.E.

O. of the Web site College Humor, told me.“The villain public persona is not a hundred-per-cent true,” A. J. Daulerio, the editor-in-chief of Deadspin, Gawker Media’s sports blog, said. “It’s probably eighty-per-cent true.”“He has fun when people say horrible things about him,” the blog guru Anil Dash said.“I can’t lie to make him worse than he is, but he’s pretty bad,” Ian Spiegelman, a former Gawker writer, said.“Other people’s emotions are alien to him,” Choire Sicha, another Gawker alumnus, said.“He’s got a strong carapace of not really thinking other people’s opinions are that important,” John Gapper, a columnist at the Financial Times, said.“He’s right,” Matt Welch, the editor of the libertarian magazine Reason, said. “He’s never right about me, of course. But people are lazy and not very good.”“He almost sees people as Legos mov- ing around,” Sheila McClear said.“He’s not a fully human person,” Spie- gelman said.“I mean, maybe he thinks he’s the one truly advanced human,” Anna Holmes, the founding editor of Jezebel, a.k.a. Girlie Gawker, said.“Does he have parents?” Daulerio asked.“I always imagine that he came fully formed out of British finishing school,” Holmes said.“Part of getting to know Nick is ac- cepting that there are things you’ll never know,” Jeff Jarvis, the new-media critic and author, said.“What can you do with a person
like that?” Spiegelman said. “He’s a character out of Dr. Seuss, frankly.”

Fun, but not exactly the stuff a good Gawker post is made of. Of course this is a New Yorker article not a Gawker post, but all the same it’s hard not to wonder whether this piece would have packed a greater punch a year ago, before the Social Network dominated theatres and FourSquare dominated tech stories. In the article Denton tells an anecdote about Zuckerman vs. Zuckerberg. The former is representative of the “Old white man” media story that no matter how juicy now dies on the page traffic-wise, the latter is representative of the story that no matter how thin generates huge traffic (“Zuckerberg is the Angelina Jolie of the Internet,” says Denton). By the end of this biographically thorough piece I’d started wondering whether as Gawker gets more and more mainstream (and as a result far less fearsome) Denton hadn’t slipped into the Zuckerman category somewhere along the way.

Somewhere near the end-ish of the article Denton notes that a good Tweet of the piece might be titled “Ten Things You Need to Know About Nick Denton” or “Why Nick Denton Is an Asshole.” Since the article doesn’t do an overly great job of proving the latter (did no one have a damning IM exchange to hand over?) here are a few more highlights from the article, though presumably if you’

ve read this far you will probably just go read the entire piece.