Comments on Gawker Editor Reduced to Tittering, Eye-Rolling Goofball by Larry King Impersonator

What I don't understand is why Kimmel is dressed like a Mafia lawyer.

he's making fun of Larry King, obv.

Pwned by Jimmy Kimmel. Nice work.

That was embarassing.

Yeah, because donning Larry King drag and pouting "Nuh uh! I wasn't drunk!" is such a shining example of high-minded journalism. STFU, Jimmy.

I'm certainly not defending Ms. Giggles, though. Her look of astonishment when the subject of celebs being murdered by their stalkers came up was either grossly disingenuous or unacceptably ignorant. Rebecca Schaeffer, anyone?

How weird. I think she expected Jimmy Kimmel to be funny and nice, and he was all, "you suck," and she was all, "waaaaah?"

It is an interesting issue, though. When people are in public, they have no expectation of privacy, but posting their location on the internet certainly takes it up a couple of notches.

But the idea that Gawker would be responsible seems a little thin. If I'm on the bus and I say, "Hey, I saw George Clooney over there!" and someone overhears me and goes and punches Clooney in the nads, is it my fault?

Calling it a "Stalker Map" is probably not a great idea, though. Incitement to stalk? Is that a crime?

Yes, it's unfortunate that Gawker rhymes with stalker. Blithely attempting to defend a "stalker map" is an uphill battle.

I wish she were not so cute (and clueless) - I couldn't help enjoying watching her even though I also despised what she does.

She's probably used to using those silly facial expressions to get attention, but it wasn't the place for it on a news show. Woops! She probably doesn't watch too much news, anyway.

It won't take long for celebrities (and their PR people) to start fucking with the Stalker Map. Once they start submitting fake "celebrity sightings", it'll make Gawker Stalker as credible as Wikipedia or The Seattle Weekly.

The thing about the gawker stalker is that the info is always a little old, so you know that Matt Broderick had a frappucino at a Starbucks on 34th and 5th but that was probably a few hours before it got posted so worthless for actual stalking. All G.S. really is is an internet "Celebs are just like us! They get drunk! They go to Starbucks!".

she's how old? 17, 18, 19, tops? no, she must be older, so that begs the question: wtf?! she couldn't defend herself with arguments even half as good as the ones posted here by random commenters. how lame is that? and she makes how much at gawker? probably a lot more than she deserves. if she is representative of the company, that doesn't bode well for their future.

Gawker may be full of douchey C-level New York gossip bullshit, but Blue States Lose is far funnier than 1,000 Jimmy Kimmels could ever be.

IMHO

I think you are all missing the point. This Gawker rep is a pr person for Gawker's target audience, not me. If I was a celebrity stalker I would identify with her battle against the selfishness of the rich and famous as exemplified by her experience on this show. As long as she doesn't say anything that increases Gawker's potential liability, her style is good pr.

I think celeb stalkers are blooming idiots (hear that Stranger), but they will identify with giggles not kimmel.

gawker explains the stalker map -->

http://gawker.com/news/cnn/how-the-gawker-stalker-map-works-a-guide-for-dummies-outraged-famous-people-and-old-folk-250593.php

despite her facial tics and giggles, I thought that kimmel came across as a jerk and a sore loser. the lawyer's assertion that the media is suppressing celebrity murders by stalkers was the most laughable thing in the whole interview.

Kimmel came off as a douche and Ms.Gawker was polite and represented herself well.