Eye, Weakly
Torontoist has been acquired by Daily Hive Toronto - Your City. Now. Click here to learn more.




Eye, Weakly

Eye, we love you, but you’re bringing us down.
In August, Kate Carraway wrote a feature article comparing Toronto’s media scene to New York’s. She bemoaned the lack of “gossip” and “glamour” and Gawker from the city’s “junior creative class,” faulting Toronto for being “smart” but “gutless” and not “balls-out” enough and “the social world of Toronto media” for being “insidious[ly] boring” and—quoting Jessica Roy, a NYU student who Gawker incidentally all but ate alive—for not being an “elite, nefarious world where people trade intellect like currency.” She also called out Torontoist (along with BlogTO and Spacing) for being too “safe,” for our “all-consuming earnestness” and because we apparently don’t “address this other stuff, this gore, that we need to talk about to be real and relevant.” As one of our own staffers put it when we passed the article around the (e-mail) water cooler: “The gore? Do we need a viscera column?”
Though Carraway would later claim that her article was “tight,” it really wasn’t: it was confusing and confused and, ultimately, wrong. Toronto is not New York—won’t ever be and shouldn’t try to be—and to look out at Toronto media and fault it not for its shit ethics or shit priorities or shit writing or shit business decisions but because its youngest members aren’t the subject of enough gossip seems the wrong fight to pick.
Still, she’d get a bit of gore. Gawker responded to Carraway’s article by acting all Gawker-y. We responded with dismissiveness. NOW, in the person of web editor (and Torontoist co-founder) Josh Errett, responded by saying that what Carraway described was impossible, because everyone in Toronto is too sensitive, as Torontoist’s birth proved. Brett Lamb responded to Errett by saying maybe Errett was too sensitive.
And now Carraway is back, and she’s pissed that people misunderstood her wholly muddy original article. To wit: “When I argued for a more significant gossip culture in Toronto’s media scene,” she says, and “for more social investment in our publications and jobs” (??), “it was because those things act in service to promote and incite more provocative and better journalism: Gawker et al for content’s sake, not for an endlessly brutal, tail-swallowing clusterfuck.” We’re pretty sure she’s confusing an effect for a cause, but honestly? We barely know what Carraway is talking about anymore, and we’re not entirely sure that she does, either. (Why else would she hand over her article for one full paragraph to a rambling and unsurprisingly self-indulgent Leah McLaren?) At least everyone in the conversation so far seems to agree on one thing: Toronto media can certainly do better. We just happen to think it won’t get that way by nefariousness—or circle-jerks.
Logo by Gawker, Photoshop by David Topping.