That's always been my test for what makes a story: is this something journalists would gossip with each other about?

I think people are sort of waking up to it now, how probably the biggest change in Internet media isn't the immediacy of it, or the low costs, but the measurability. Which is actually terrifying if you're a traditional journalist, and used to pushing what people ought to like, or what you think they ought to like.

Your writers write these pieces about meaningless startups, meaningless apps and meaningless companies.

Publishing should be a collaboration between authors and their smartest readers - and at some point the distinction should become meaningless.

Critics say Internet advertising suffers from limitless inventory, which depresses prices. These exclusive front-page sponsorships are not limitless. If HBO doesn't move quickly enough, Showtime can buy out Gawker and Jezebel for the key fall TV season. On any individual day, there isn't room for both of them; and that's healthy.

Henry Blodget does occasionally have a new idea. If you're making a point about aggregation or the emptiness of modern journalism, he's far from the best target. Try Huffpo - or Gawker writers whose souls have been corroded by irony.

Superior writers, videographers and other content makers want to work with their own kind and for their own kind.