In defense of Jimmy Kimmel.

I'm usually loathe to involve this blog in silly blogosphere crap like this, but...

Above, witness Jimmy Kimmel, a moderately funny and very affable television host, sticking it to the alarmingly self-satisfied editor of Gawker. At issue is whether Gawker's celebrity coverage is appropriate, particularly the "Gawker Stalker," wherein "citizen journalists" tell Gawker exactly where and when they saw celebrities.

Here's the deal from my perspective: being a blogger is great. You can be irreverent, cute, whatever. But at some point, you have to take responsibility for something.

But Kimmel asks a pertinent question: "I know you're an editor, what exactly do you edit from this website?"

He's not exactly F. Lee Bailey when it comes to grueling cross-examinations, but he gets the point across.

She states, "Do you read Us Weekly and expect that everything in it is true?"

Well, I don't read Us Weekly, but even entertainment journalists check their facts and take responsibility for what they publish. That kind of "well, their ethics are questionable too!" stuff is horrible.

Kimmel hits her hard, I think, when he says to her, "I just want you to think about your life."

Then she brings up a second justification: "Honestly, I think there's a shifting definition of what is public and what is private space, for everyone, not just celebrities. No one has the reasonable expectation of being able to walk down the street and not have what they're doing be noticed by someone."

This, of course, is a specious legal argument, and Kimmel hits back on moral grounds:

"But that is just a terrible thing, though, isn't it?"

"Is it though? I think it's good that we're not putting people up on a pedastal any more..."

Does she seriously believe that she's not putting celebrities up on a pedestal? On a site called GAWKER?!

Putting celebrities down is just another kind of putting them on a pedestal. If she thinks she's doing something different from Us Weekly or even the Hollwood PR machine press of days gone by, she's kidding herself.

Well, that's not entirely true... there is one difference between the old and new celebrity media. The new celebrity media is just as worshipful of celebrity -- but it's dramatically meaner. Sometimes in the name of "snark," or "cattiness," but often just in the name of meanness.

I've never been a huge fan of Kimmel's comedy, but I think he runs a solid TV show and has had a very interesting career. Through that career, the one thing that has made him succesful above all else is his earnestness. Kimmel may be broad or gross or stupid or he may be insightful or edgy or funny, but he really seems to care about being himself and representing himself honestly. That gets him a long way, here, and is I think what made the clip so devastating, despite Kimmel's modest shortcomings as a debater.

The bottom line: this kind of snarky psuedo-journalism may be legal and it may be profitable, but that doesn't make it good or right.

Like this post? Click here to subscribe to the blog.