Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Eileen Macoll Endorses Clinton | SIFF 2008: Day 8 Recommendatio... »

Thursday, May 29, 2008

He Blogged, She Blogged

posted by on May 29 at 9:25 AM


Yesterday Dan deigned to sully the Slog with indirect acknowledgment of Emily Gould, the former Gawker blogger responsible for the ten-page kiss-and-tell-and-then-have-a-panic-attack-on-the-bathroom-floor cover story of last week’s New York Times Magazine.

As the comments to Dan’s post show, Gould got a lot of (deserved) shit for her monumental overshare. But for what it’s worth, he kinda started it—he being Gawker alum Joshua David Stein, who dissected his relationship and breakup with Emily Gould for Page Six Magazine the week before Emily Gould dissected her relationship and breakup with Josh Stein in The New York Times Magazine.

Page Six versus the Times? Clearly she’s the winner. However, she’s also responsible for this:

I hereby promise never to mention her or him ever again, unless one or both of them commits suicide or attempts to assassinate a public figure.

RSS icon Comments


Jesus God almightly these people are horrible. Between her eyerolling and blogorrhea and his photoshoot sweater and "I wanted to keep our relationship a secret" IN A FUCKING FASHION SHOOT, I can't tell which I want to see die first. Perhaps they could both be killed, and then we could vote on which gave us the most pleasure.

Posted by Fnarf | May 29, 2008 9:44 AM

Fnarf FTW.

I am amazed how media unsavvy this media hag is. My god...

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | May 29, 2008 9:46 AM


Could we please just limit any future mention of these two attention-guzzling imbeciles to assassination attempts only?

I doubt anyone outside of a small section of Manhattan is REALLY going to care whether they off themselves at some future date.

Posted by COMTE | May 29, 2008 10:03 AM

David Schmader; The New Perez Hilton of The STranger?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | May 29, 2008 10:18 AM

I could kick his ass. And hers, too.

Posted by Mr. Poe | May 29, 2008 10:21 AM

For reasons of fairness only, I felt compelled to read his version, since I read her version yesterday (all 10 long fucking pages of it).

Completely separate from their individual and combined plights (or why I should care even the slightest), reading both these articles leaves me with the following question: Does anyone at either of those papers believe in editing? Or brevity? Or getting to the point in less than 100,000 words? WTF!! Do the editors just run a spell check and publish the story as submitted? Did their red pens run out of ink?

His story was (blessedly) shorter than hers. But both were unbearably long. And for that I blame the editors.

Posted by Reverse Polarity | May 29, 2008 10:39 AM

I dislike it when local-New York stories are reported as if they are national news.

New York is the most provincial city in the United States, in the world. Let's not indulge them.

Posted by Simac | May 29, 2008 10:50 AM

Who gives a shit about these dirtbags? They both deserve napalm enemas for ever working at The Gawker. I wonder if Hell has a gossip rag they could run?

Posted by Larry Craig | May 29, 2008 10:55 AM

The East Coast / West Coast thing just never dies, does it?

Posted by kid icarus | May 29, 2008 10:57 AM

Simac as a New Yorker I agree with you. That's how the rest of the world feels about the US news.

Posted by Mike | May 29, 2008 11:04 AM

This says more about the New York Times than about anything else.

Posted by fixo | May 29, 2008 11:07 AM

Wow. This is the first time I've seen that interview with Kimmel. Emily's NYT account of the interview gave me a completely different impression of her than the interview itself. She's completely vapid. Just love the idea that celebrities are protected from slanderous lies by their "piles of money." Vomit.

Posted by The General | May 29, 2008 11:24 AM

Sorry, I'm on Josh Stein's side on this one. He didn't start it, she did by posting all that shit about him on her "secret" blog and then blasting the "secret" blog to pretty much everybody in their world.

And now I have to go blow my brains out because I realize that it is insane for me to have an opinion on this.

Posted by PopTart | May 29, 2008 11:25 AM


You hit the nail on the head. I visited New York after taking a trip to Istanbul and my hosts couldn't believe that I found New York to be a little boring in comparison. They also couldn't believe that other places do movies in the park or have scooter gangs or bicycle gangs. It's like they never leave.

Posted by Sir Learnsalot | May 29, 2008 11:27 AM

Oh holy lord, this line from Josh's account makes me want to poke my eyes out: "On my first day on the job, back in March 2007, Emily bought me a raspberry clafoutis from Balthazar. Soon we were flirting." I wish I had never known about these people.

Posted by The General | May 29, 2008 11:39 AM

Wow... this is why "people" with vaginas should not be allowed to go out into the public sphere. (I have never been more glad to be gay then after having watched that interview.) Why are women like that?

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | May 29, 2008 11:42 AM

These people are by far the most annoying/insipid couple ever. Or at least, this week. *le sigh*

Posted by Original Monique | May 29, 2008 11:45 AM

4: All I need to do is learn how to photoshop come-drools onto people's faces...

Posted by David Schmader | May 29, 2008 12:00 PM

@6 I had the same reaction. I mean, misspellings, improper use of English. Good God, WHAT was her major again??

@16 I swear not all women are like this. Not all. Just, sadly, most.

"You look like a very pleasant woman." (Translation: I'd have sex with you.) Ew ew ew ew ew.

Posted by Marty | May 29, 2008 12:18 PM

@16: Not all women are like this, I promise.

These people are wastes of oxygen.

"Oh. Poor me. My first boyfriend asked me for privacy and I refused to give it to him. Then my second boyfriend got mad at me for posting about him but I did it anyway and he dumped me." Boo-fucking-hoo.

I do have a question, though, of all people, why the fuck was Jimmy Kimmel interviewing people on Larry King's show? I liked that he went after Emily like that, but seriously? Jimmy Kimmel on CNN?

Posted by Jo | May 29, 2008 12:38 PM

... Is it really eye-rolling? The woman just seems to have far too many facial expressions. God, quite pursuing your lips for like a SECOND.

Posted by Marty | May 29, 2008 1:05 PM

@19 and 20,

You're responding to a misogynistic fuckwit. He hates women and is looking for any excuse to hate us. Figuratively kick him in the balls or ignore him, but don't think that anything he wrote is in good faith. It's not.

Oh, and YGBKM @16. Eat shit and die.

Posted by keshmeshi | May 29, 2008 1:24 PM

Oh Keshmeshi. Don't get your panties in a bunch. (Silly girl.)

I don't "hate" women. I just find that they are frequently annoying and generally irrelevant. (Kind of like children. Which I don't hate either, but I do avoid whenever possible.) I just don't see the point in them.

Seems to me like you have the hate market pretty well cornered... (But then you girls are always soooo emotional aren't you?)

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | May 29, 2008 1:50 PM

Shorter #23:"I don't hate women,I just hate women.'Cos they're,like,all bitchez 'n stuff,doncha know?"/sarcasm off

Posted by resident_alien | May 29, 2008 2:04 PM


Actually there is a space between hate and love... Extreme indifference tempered by mild irritation would be a better characterization of my regard for women.

I just haven't ever found a use for them in my adult life. I haven't identified anything I needed or wanted from another person that a man couldn't better provide to me.

So I find women to mostly be annoying nuisances.

Calling that misogyny robs a perfectly good word of its useful meaning.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | May 29, 2008 2:36 PM

That interview wasn't really THAT bad... I was expecting it to be 100 times worse from the way people were talking about it. She did appear visibly nervous, but that talk show host was completely unprofessional, acting in a fashion I'd expect of Bill O'Reilly but rarely anyone else. Does he think his "journalism" is better? Using his position as a talk show host to settle a personal issue? I think she had some valid points to make and I don't think he gave her sufficient attention or consideration. I hate when these celebrities go in the public eye and think they can still maintain privacy. Of course everyone has a RIGHT to privacy, but by choosing to go on camera, they've got to expect some consequences.

Posted by Sage | May 29, 2008 3:55 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.