Which is how I came to write this. One day I was casually telling Massing how an old friend of mine from the Journal, a sweet, respectable thirty-year-old with a husband and no personality disorders or history of substance abuse, had recently quit full-time journalism and started freelancing so she could also write poetry—“I can’t imagine what the twenty-two-year-old J-school me would think,” she told me, “but I just couldn’t see how I could get any better without branching out from journalism”—and a month (and several more conversations) later Massing e-mailed a suggestion that I should write about “the life of a young urban writer now.”
So I wrote what I know, or rather what I’ve learned, which could be summed up this way: when the Internet forced journalism to compete economically after years of monopoly, journalism panicked and adopted some of the worst examples of the nothing-based economy, in which success depends on the continued infantilization of both supply and demand. At the same time, journalism clung to its myths of objectivity and detachment, using them to dismiss the emerging blogger threat as something unserious and fundamentally parasitic, even as it produced a steady stream of obsessive but sneering trend stories on the blogosphere.
Consider the breathless (and stylishly photographed) April 1 piece in The New York Times that spotlighted the “notable scoops” broken by the latest microgeneration of up-and-coming gossip bloggers—two had involved sub-sub-subplots of the lives of reality-show starlets, one was about NBC’s Black History Month cafeteria menu, another was referred to as “an ‘investigation’ into the White House budget director Peter Orszag’s hair,” and the rest were arguably less meaty than those.
Yet one of the featured “next big thing” bloggers was twenty-six-year-old Bess Levin of the Wall Street blog Dealbreaker. The Times had listed as Levin’s “notable scoop” her procurement of an embarrassing party invitation sent out by the “prominent but discreet” hedge-fund manager Steven A. Cohen. Tellingly, the Times failed to mention several much more notable “scoops” Levin had published about Cohen’s hedge fund, such as the one about the portfolio manager who was sued by one of his (male) former traders in what was perhaps the most disturbing sexual harassment complaint in Wall Street history. (And I have read at least fifty of them.)
More troubling was that the Times listed as Levin’s “memorable gaffe” a post in late 2008 in which she reported what she termed an “unfounded rumor” that a major hedge fund’s prime brokers were threatening liquidation. “It turns out the rumor was indeed ‘unfounded’, so she quickly removed it under pressure,” the Times explained in a condescending sentence that could have only been written by someone who didn’t understand that in 2008 virtually all hedge funds were so massively leveraged—in an effort to amp returns—that the threat of liquidation was perpetually on the table.
This passage lays bare an old-media strategy of dismissing bloggers by policing the permeable walls between news and gossip, analysis and opinion, perspective and attention-seeking. Hedge funds are largely unregulated; “news” about them is often inextricable from “rumor.” It is this disturbing reality that has helped make Bess Levin’s “gossip blog” an important source of information about the financial industry.
So, in this context, her pulling this “rumor” can either be seen as a “gaffe” or, given the obvious power imbalances, an example of a hedge-fund manager trying to save his ass and/or blow off steam by intimidating some kid two years out of college.

As a Moe devotee, who gave up on Jezebel after she left, this article made my day.
#1 Posted by Letizia Rossi, CJR on Tue 18 May 2010 at 02:53 PM
I've never heard of Maureen Tkacik, that's my fault for being a technology blogger who is also having an existential crisis about the industry and where great content will come from in general, but after reading this piece I want to meet her for drinks and talk for hours upon hours.
If you're reading this "Moe", shoot me an email.
Please.
#2 Posted by Stefan, CJR on Tue 18 May 2010 at 05:51 PM
And the pen said . . . whatever.
#3 Posted by BeeCee, CJR on Tue 18 May 2010 at 05:53 PM
I loved Moe's writing on Jezebel and later Gawker, and actually quit reading both after she left. I read some of the pieces she did on TPM later, but the small word-account often seen in high-volume blogs always seemed to detract from her strength, longer, more thoughtful pieces rich with commentary and contextualization.
#4 Posted by Morally Bankrupt, CJR on Tue 18 May 2010 at 05:55 PM
Good article. But, and I realize you're not claiming anything new under the sun here, wouldn't the combination of journalism's penchant for facts, important stories, analysis, etc. and blogging's more subjective "look at me" approach be roughly the same as Gonzo journalism? (Not that I wouldn't mind a return.)
#5 Posted by Stephen, CJR on Tue 18 May 2010 at 07:00 PM
Good stuff.
There's a lot to comment on in this piece, but I don't have the time or space (kid's piano lessons await) But I thought Moe's analysis was clear and concise. But what to do about it?
Dunno.
#6 Posted by dan robinson, CJR on Tue 18 May 2010 at 09:36 PM
Excellent and a must read for anyone interested in modern media.
Kudos, Moe from a longtime fan.
#7 Posted by Magister, CJR on Tue 18 May 2010 at 10:13 PM
Amazing.
#8 Posted by Molly Young, CJR on Tue 18 May 2010 at 11:52 PM
Yep, I would second the question: "And your thesis is different than HST in what way?".
But I would also ask the question: "This article is different than Emily Gould's "Exposed" article in what way?"
#9 Posted by Jeffrey, CJR on Wed 19 May 2010 at 12:15 AM
Huh... I always wanted to be a writer because I enjoyed writing.
Well done, Moe.
#10 Posted by Sarah Brown, CJR on Wed 19 May 2010 at 08:52 AM
Moe's article for "The Baffler" was also excellent!
#11 Posted by victorianist, CJR on Wed 19 May 2010 at 10:13 AM
CJR, maybe your indictments of journalism should come from someone who hasn't written an in depth essay about removing a foul-smelling tampon that was stuck inside of her for 10 days.
http://jezebel.com/388226/ten-days-in-the-life-of-a-tampon
#12 Posted by Mind Bomber, CJR on Wed 19 May 2010 at 12:11 PM
Wonderful piece!
#13 Posted by Liza Featherstone, CJR on Wed 19 May 2010 at 01:54 PM
Pretty good commentary, but on the other hand, TL-frickin'-DR. Chop the first half that I skimmed over down to a few sentences and you'll be saying the same thing without boring us half to death with minutiae about different sources.
e.g.: "In my journalism history, time and again I encountered the pressure on traditional newspapers to bury certain kinds of stories. At the Daily Pennsylvanian, for example, the editors were frightened into suspending my column after a fraternity's members complained about my article about one of the brothers showing the others a video of himself having sex with his girlfriend. Later, at the Philadelphia Daily News, I was covering a new police commissioner's aggressive crackdown on perhaps the toughest part of the city -- which amounted, among other things, to rounding up and jailing hapless heroin addicts rather than more violent criminals -- and I learned from the author of a book on combating drug crime that the new police commissioner's own daughter was a heroin addict. When I went to confront the police commissioner in person, however, I found myself intimidated, questioned my own certitude -- violent crime rates had been falling, for one thing -- and was shut down by the commissioner upon asking about this daughter. My editors quashed my story, and as it happened, the next round of budget cuts included the budget for my job."
There you go, 674 words down to 189, with all the useful stuff still in there.
(Yes, I know the CJR probably gave you a word count and was probably paying you by the word. That's one reason magazines are terrible.)
#14 Posted by neff, CJR on Wed 19 May 2010 at 02:28 PM
neff, the problem is that your version is much duller. Tkacik has garnered whatever success and fame she has by being entertaining.
#15 Posted by PG, CJR on Wed 19 May 2010 at 06:08 PM
awesome.
#16 Posted by mattathias, CJR on Thu 20 May 2010 at 12:43 AM
This was an entertaining piece. However, you're nuts if you think its main purpose was to advance Ms. Tkacik's theory about the troubled state of journalism today. The real purpose of this article was to build Moe Tkacik's brand. The first half of the piece was an extended brag session about how interesting Moe's life has been to date. The second half was a holier-than-thou analysis of her journey of journalistic discovery; she rose to the top of the industry and figured out how bankrupt it is as a result. Her "message" is going to reach key stakeholders in the news industry, who will obligingly hire her to write similar pieces and pay her more money to do it. Congratulations to Ms. Tkacik for her savvy marketing abilities, and for her skill in portraying herself as both of contemporary journalism and above contemporary journalism.
#17 Posted by Michael D, CJR on Thu 20 May 2010 at 02:41 AM
This was an entertaining piece. However, you're nuts if you think its main purpose was to advance Ms. Tkacik's theory about the troubled state of journalism today. The real purpose of this article was to build Moe Tkacik's brand. The first half of the piece was an extended brag session about how interesting Moe's life has been to date. The second half was a holier-than-thou analysis of her journey of journalistic discovery; she rose to the top of the industry and figured out how bankrupt it is as a result. Her "message" is going to reach key stakeholders in the news industry, who will obligingly hire her to write similar pieces and pay her more money to do it. Congratulations to Ms. Tkacik for her savvy marketing abilities, and for her skill in portraying herself as both of contemporary journalism and above contemporary journalism.
#18 Posted by Michael D, CJR on Thu 20 May 2010 at 02:43 AM
I love solid writing. Believe it or not, this piece of writing turns out to be the reason I got up this morning. Hmm, it is only 2:30 AM. I hope I don't have to wait so long tomorrow.
Timbotalk
#19 Posted by Timothy D. Illian, CJR on Thu 20 May 2010 at 04:25 AM
"Rather than train journalists to dismiss their own experiences, what if we trained them to use those experiences to help them explain the news to their audience? Allow their humanity to shape their journalism?"
But how do you then keep them from discarding objective facts in favor of their own biases and agenda?
All you'll be doing is training an entire generations of Keith Olbermanns and Bill O'Reillys - demagogues instead of journalists. And we need LESS of that, not more.
#20 Posted by John S., CJR on Thu 20 May 2010 at 09:04 AM
"All you'll be doing is training an entire generations of Keith Olbermanns and Bill O'Reillys - demagogues instead of journalists. And we need LESS of that, not more."
O'Reilly and other hacks were trained under the current system, and yet, today's punditry is already full of dishonest hackery. Considering how ubiquitous that is, it's hard to believe training reduces it, just hides it under pro forma disclaimers.
No one is supporting argument by anecdote, let alone straight-up lying like O'Reilly. (And it seems unfair to treat Olbermann as the same as O'Reilly, but that's not the point.) One idea I see mentioned in this article is for a writing style that allows for illustration by anecdote and admitting that the writer's experiences inform their perspective - and why not, when so many other genres allow them? - and another is for less sensationalism. The former has nothing to do with demogoguery and the second actively opposes it.
#21 Posted by Cyrus, CJR on Thu 20 May 2010 at 12:00 PM
Beautiful! It wandered well and I felt neither pushed nor pulled.
#22 Posted by Fred X. Quimby, CJR on Thu 20 May 2010 at 02:18 PM
Beautiful! It wandered well and I felt neither pushed nor pulled.
#23 Posted by Fred X. Quimby, CJR on Thu 20 May 2010 at 02:21 PM
Jezebel was not a whore, she was the Queen of fricking Israel for gosh sacks. Nor was she eaten alive by dogs, she was already dead when the dogs ate her.
#24 Posted by Jacob, CJR on Thu 20 May 2010 at 03:11 PM
Why haven't I heard about Maureen Tkacik before??? Stunning piece.
My brain felt satisfyingly stimulated! Thanks Jezebel for introducing me to her work.
#25 Posted by tam, CJR on Thu 20 May 2010 at 04:06 PM
Wonderful. I wondered where "Moe" might next show up, after her departure from Jezebel and TPM.
Moe, I hope to see you soon as a regular contributor online again, somewhere.
{I don't think I saw it anywhere here, so, if anyone wants to follow her via Twitter: http://twitter.com/moetkacik }
#26 Posted by Steplor, CJR on Thu 20 May 2010 at 04:31 PM
Oy. This is one of the most depressing things I've read in years. Pretty well-done, too.
I wonder what percentage of readers make it through to the end? 2%? 3?
-fred
#27 Posted by Fred Fnord, CJR on Thu 20 May 2010 at 05:19 PM
And with that, I have fallen in love.
#28 Posted by Zifnab, CJR on Thu 20 May 2010 at 06:27 PM
This is meant as *constructive* criticism; that said,
a.) "just naturally involves letting down the old guard of objectivity and letting go of illusions of unimpeachability. Rather than train journalists to dismiss their own experiences, what if we trained them ... merits of 'straight' news versus the self-absorbed nature of blogs. Maybe there is a way to combine..."
I stopped reading after this, and started skimming way earlier. Among the problems here -- some people want to know what happened today, and simply don't care what your friend from (wherever) said over drinks last week. There's a reason why newswriting 101 and memoir workshops are taught separately. It would be tough to meld them without encouraging worst practices in both.
b.) http://www.slate.com/id/2193216/
#29 Posted by J.S., CJR on Thu 20 May 2010 at 07:49 PM
This, too is meant as constructive criticism. God. How depressing, and without the redemptive ending that makes the good old-fashioned American story. Maybe when you hit 40. That sticky, pervasive cynicism is what's so off-putting -- maybe a defense mechanism or else just sheer exhaustion from trying to make it in your world without an interested mentor at a real, steady job. That how they used to do it.
As a news consumer, I don't want my daily news delivered by someone who is in the process of working out her various neuroses and ennui. But I think you have a lot of promise in the long-form. Try to get over that exhibitionist neediness -- maybe go after a story, as you've tried, that is bigger than yourself. In journalism, it isn't supposed to be all about you.
Here:
The best damn job in the whole damn world - Roger Ebert's Journal
#30 Posted by Tom, CJR on Thu 20 May 2010 at 09:56 PM
Brilliant.
#31 Posted by Jenna, CJR on Fri 21 May 2010 at 01:14 AM
The article is very well-written even if I (kinda) agree with Tom. Didn't Ann Marie Cox just review Emily Gould's memoir? And I don't think she played nice. Of course, they both get bad reviews in your review. Maybe you girls just need to go work it out somewhere? Braid each other's hair?
Are any of you saying anything worthwhile?
#32 Posted by K, CJR on Fri 21 May 2010 at 01:51 AM
That's a whole lot of words to express that it's kind of a bitch to be a writer in a modern market-driven capitalist country.
#33 Posted by Marianne, CJR on Mon 24 May 2010 at 03:42 PM
epic. and yes, I read the whole thing. twice.
how freaking funny is it that the stupid secret squirrel code word to post this comment is "jersey restored"? Jersey Shore, Jersey Restored... this article. God, the Universe is funny.
#34 Posted by brian, CJR on Mon 24 May 2010 at 10:17 PM
brilliant. looking forward to reading the book. that is, i hope there'll be a book of this.
#35 Posted by fom, CJR on Sun 30 May 2010 at 05:20 AM
Awesome piece. And I was just talking to your Dad about you a few weeks ago in Taipei after seeing some of your stuff on other sites. Now there are two awesome and passionate Tkaciks to admire, each in their own way.
Michael
#36 Posted by Michael Turton, CJR on Sun 30 May 2010 at 07:26 AM
It is unfortunate that the vulgar and its entertainments take a certain amount of precedence over 'real' journalism: issues that concerned individuals wished more people would discuss more enthusiastically and more often. The saddest take-away from this piece is that the concerned have, for what seems the greater part of the 'modern age,' tried to shake the 'others' out of their stupor and wake up(!) to the fact that social progress is not an inevitability; that we need to grow the ranks of the concerned in order to stave off a cultural of excess and apathy. The story of the societies that 'grew fat and died' on their triumphs only to be flattened by the next upstarts is a common occurrence in the annals of history. Woe that it should happen here and now. Or, some-what more likely, in the near future.
All of this is to say the article is a decently good account of modern angst, but nothing new. I hope more writing of this kind encourages more than deflates the necessity of (inter)national dialogue among concerned individuals. As far as the concept of 'The Nothing-Based Economy' goes I generally agree that the opportunity to scam consumers is too great and consumer protection too limited (and in too many cases non-existent). However, it is the job of the consumer to consume. In the ideal they are well informed, but in reality we know that is quite hard to achieve. I am not an apologist for business, but one who tries to take into account the rigors and demands of private enterprise and, as is cited in the article, the responsibilities of businessmen to stockholders, not consumers. This is a sad state of affairs, but it is the reality nonetheless.
I hope that we are able to develop a more internationally conscious, concerned, and information-hungry society. Such a culture might reduce the ability of companies to operate with such blatant disregard for their consuming public.I think writing about these subjects should reflect less angst about this emerging system as angst in, at least to me, uninspiring. On the future of journalism argument, I believe media needs to provide an objective voice that the inspiring (if not to be found in the media) might point to and say "Here is the situation. Let's do something about it."
#37 Posted by Ben B, CJR on Thu 3 Jun 2010 at 03:43 AM
Saul Bellow in 1955:
"Let it be remembered that it was as a journalist that Dostoevsky wrote these Winter Notes. The articles were published in a review called Vremya and were read by the majority of educated Russians. Our American journalism of today is quite different. Vast organizations prepare for us their version of things as they are abroad. For this purpose they employ numbers of former police-reporters. And when the stuff gathered by these reporters comes in, it is processed at the editorial desk. And then we are fed a homogeneous substance called information, created by experts, some of whom know how to simulate a personal manner. Rarely are talented and educated men permitted to convey in their own words their own sense of reality. No. If an activity is not, in our bureaucratic times, corporate, it is suspect.
What we read in our great newspapers and magazines is an artificial mixture concocted to appease our desire to be informed."
#38 Posted by Brett J, CJR on Fri 4 Jun 2010 at 02:04 PM
Would someone please explain the this excessive supply of words? Really...I've been waiting and waiting, reading and reading and finally didn't even finish. Please...
#39 Posted by David Orman, CJR on Fri 4 Jun 2010 at 02:41 PM
Would someone please explain the this excessive supply of words? Really...I've been waiting and waiting, reading and reading and finally didn't even finish. Please...
#40 Posted by David Orman, CJR on Fri 4 Jun 2010 at 02:41 PM
I quite enjoyed this piece. Keep on keeping on, Maureen/Moe Tkacik. You too, Bess Levin.
#41 Posted by Aaron Elstein, CJR on Fri 4 Jun 2010 at 03:29 PM
Yes - journalism is no longer a profession, it has become just another business. It focusses on its branding, buys cheap and sells dear and it makes maximum use of its target market. I think that's called aiming at the lowest common denominator.
Sadly, that means shallow, gossip-ridden, narcissistic tosh is what we get served up. It seems to be what most of us want.
#42 Posted by Neil, CJR on Thu 24 Jun 2010 at 06:25 PM
I guess it is inevitable that Moe's tampon story would be used against her. Too bad. This is a great, well-written piece.
#43 Posted by LaNocciola, CJR on Wed 30 Jun 2010 at 12:07 PM
Excellent post...almost in the Muckraker style of old. Well done.
#44 Posted by Lonesome Pete, CJR on Thu 1 Jul 2010 at 11:52 AM
IT'S IRONIC BECAUSE THE WELL WRITTEN LONG FORM ARTICLE EXPOSING THE GROWING TREND OF JOURNALISM AS AUTOBIOGRAPHY AND CELEBRITY IS ITSELF A MEMOIR PIECE WRITTEN BY A JOURNALIST WHO IS A RISING CELEBRITY, AND MOST OF THE COMMENTS CELEBRATE THE AUTHOR RATHER THAN THE WORK ITSELF. OH THE IRONY
#45 Posted by Avery, CJR on Thu 1 Jul 2010 at 02:09 PM
Moe you are a superstar
#46 Posted by Elif, CJR on Sat 17 Jul 2010 at 12:59 AM
as a young and aspiring writer/journalist/concerned human being I have to say this article is refreshing in that it cuts through bullshit. I think the commenters who decry this piece for being too long are the exact type of people who propagate the problems journalism is experiencing today. have we really gotten to the point where trying to spend genuine brain power on figuring out why journalism is fucked up is seen as tiresome?
#47 Posted by gabriel, CJR on Sat 14 Aug 2010 at 01:03 PM
This was a fantastic piece Moe. It gave me a lot to think about, but I especially liked the insights into the Gawker-verse. We miss you on Jez.
#48 Posted by Nina, CJR on Wed 15 Sep 2010 at 03:01 PM
Wow. Pulitzer-worthy. What an amazing writer. I remember Gawker from the Emily-Choire days. This, kiddo, is a masterpiece.
Terrence
#49 Posted by Terrence, CJR on Sat 9 Oct 2010 at 12:10 AM
Moe writes of what she knows: unrelenting narcissism. I hope real journalists continue writing real news, so she will have something to link to and opine about, in her parasitic, creepily nasty way.
#50 Posted by msiowa, CJR on Tue 8 Feb 2011 at 08:06 PM
The Look at me Title--reminds me of everybody on internet--a whole bunch of people writing blogs, tweeting, posting on FB all screaming LOOK AT ME. Most don't really deserve a second look. So journalists do really have to write about SOMETHING--then the SOMETHING will
Love the nothing-based economy. And we wonder why America's economy is messed up, all we sell is NOTHING and laud the zero-salespeople.
#51 Posted by amy cross, CJR on Wed 9 Feb 2011 at 10:01 AM
Maureen Tkacik's writing smacks of nothing-based journalism.
#52 Posted by Dominic, CJR on Wed 23 Mar 2011 at 06:17 PM
Accusations of narcissism and comparisons to Hunter S.-I could almost be reading another Matt Taibbi=plagiarist story. But this was so much better.
#53 Posted by Mojo Bone, CJR on Mon 27 Jun 2011 at 10:43 AM
Nice article. I'd read that book.
The article's title reminded of this which I first heard on a Teri Gross interview of Dustin Hoffman.
At the end of filming Marathon Man, there was a party. Laurence Olivier was quite ill. The shooting had been intense, and everyone was relieved it was over. Hoffman never quite got over being in awe of Olivier, despite their polar opposite ways of working (“My dear boy, why don’t you try just acting?”) – and he was very moved by the thought of Olivier, this old ill man, turning in such a great performance. It is what he does. Hoffman was sitting with Olivier at the party, and Olivier said, out of the blue, “Do you know why I do this?” (Meaning: acting). Hoffman shook his head No. Olivier got up, which was a bit of a struggle for him, he was quite weak, and leaned over to Hoffman, putting his face right up against Hoffman’s – and saying over and over and over, “Look at me look at me look at me look at me look at me look at me look at me look at me …”
http://www.sheilaomalley.com/?p=8183
#54 Posted by takchess, CJR on Mon 22 Aug 2011 at 06:03 PM
@takchess - Yours was the best part of the story.
#55 Posted by Xenophon, CJR on Mon 26 Sep 2011 at 12:46 PM
Amazing article! The '90s and the millennia was a crazy transition. I think most of us were abusing all kinds of substances in those days. Sometimes it was the only way to find depth in shallow water. This article places a lot of things in perspective for me. That whole era feels like a blur and I can't piece together everything that happened. Thank you for the insightful timeline!
#56 Posted by Candice Martinez, CJR on Tue 11 Oct 2011 at 02:00 AM
Why didn't you write the financial piece? Seems like it was akin to some of the assignments you wre shooting for, and I know you've written along those lines (love Das Krapital btw). Just curious.
#57 Posted by Alex, CJR on Wed 19 Sep 2012 at 01:44 PM
After reading her bitchslapping of ATLANTIC in the Baffler, I've been trying to find eveything she's written. I can't believe I'd not read her before. This piece articulates what I've long thought about the state of journalism and how it got there, but I didn't know that's what I'd thought until I'd read this. I mean that as praise. Some have criticized the "autobiography" aspect of it, but it is her story as well, isn't it? Her being a journalist and all? There's a difference between being personally honest and self-branding. It seems to me that this article was also about that difference, and how that line is blurred by people who aren't even aware they're blurring them. Even as they are being oh so self-conscious. Well done. I recommend her piece on Malcolm Gladwell too.
#58 Posted by Merle Kessler, CJR on Fri 21 Sep 2012 at 08:53 PM
If everything is about branding, how ordinary people protect themselves.
#59 Posted by Jason, CJR on Sat 6 Oct 2012 at 11:46 PM