Google’s recent decision to allow newsmakers to add comments to stories about themselves on Google News has already generated a lot of buzz – most of it good, but some of it skeptical (btw, those links are via Mathew Ingram’s post on the story, someone who seems optimistic about the idea). A lot of the response has focused on just how much work this is going to be (you know Google, they’re all about the manual labour), but I think I most like Tony Hung’s suggestion that is a move towards News 2.0, forcing journalism to respond to the always-present potential of the crowd.

To my mind though, a yet-to-be discussed aspect of the story is what it says about contemporary approaches to journalistic objectivity and truth. The move by Google to include additional voices can also be seen as a message: that absolute journalistic objectivity is unattainable and, instead, the best we can hope for is ‘to get as close as we can’, an approach that I think is far more realistic and pragmatic. While the idea that truth is produced, manipulated and often contextual is now generally accepted, at least tacitly, it has yet to gain much traction in the mainstream press – understandably so, as the official stance of news organisations has always been ‘to bring you the truth’.

But this move by Google and the reaction to it might suggest that widespread conceptions of truth as something fixed and unchanging may be losing traction, a happening which is quite exciting to me. What does it mean that Google feels comments are necessary on news stories? Why introduce comments at all? A possible answer is that there is that traditional media hasn’t responded quickly enough to a generation who have long given up the idea of ‘the objectivity of journalism’. A mainstream acceptance of the consistent need to question how the news is positioned seems like it could only have positive consequences as we are forced to hold our journalists (and governments) to more rigorous standards of fact-checking and transparency. And hey, if anyone has the clout to do it, it’s gotta’ be Google. Here’s hoping.

Alright, let’s be clear – I am probably not the target demographic for Jezebel, Gawker’s ‘anti-woman’s-mag’ blog. And I don’t mean that simply because I’m a man – I just mean I’m not bloody trendy enough. Nonetheless, for better or for worse – actually, it’s for worse – I’ve recently developed a bit of an unhealthy addiction to Jezebel. And while I might normally feel a bit sheepish about reading a site that, among other things, reports on the adventures of LinLo or Charlize Theron standing in line, the tone on Jezebel is so utterly foul-mouthed and so dripping in sarcasm and self-deprecation that it almost makes reading a story on the shifting positions of Britney Spears’ nipples okay. Almost.

But I think the thing that has me hooked on Jezebel are the layers upon layers of contradictions. I mean, you try and figure out any sort of political position. One minute they’ll have a piece of gossip fluff, followed by a vaguely feminist rant, only to then tear apart some misogynistic cunt like Terence Howard (yeah, yeah, I’m aware of the irony of using the word ‘cunt’). I realise that there are 4 editors who will obviously have different positions and that there will never be one fixed perspective – it’s just that the mix of posts seems like such a strange combination.

But as a commenter on Fimoculous suggested “There are so many conflicts of editorial integrity at Jezebel one assumes that must be the point. Railing against women’s magazines while spouting a newer/hipper/hotter form of meta flagellation is complete bullshit”. I’m not sure I’d go so far as to call it bullshit, but the combination of celebrity worship and feminism is an odd mix. I think it’s fair to argue that feminism and the idolisation of a bunch of skinny, white women aren’t exactly easy bedfellows, to make no mention of the commodity fetishism and objectification that goes on around ‘fashion’.

Now, I’m not gonna’ lie. There’s obviously a bit of voyeurism and ‘the allure of cultural capital‘ going on here – I do, after all, have nowhere near enough contact with successful, hot, foul-mouthed women. I don’t think I’m even criticising Jezebel. I’m just trying to figure out if this is what ‘third-wave feminism’ is: the acceptance of shit the way it is, with the odd f-word laced critique thrown in; or if there’s some deeper sophistication about gender and politics that I’m missing.

The interesting thing is, though, that this sort of writing is only really possible online. While one could do it in a zine, it’s certain it would never have the sort of readership that Jezebel does. For the time being though – is there anyone who can actually explain Jezebel to me in a way that makes sense? ‘Cause for now, to my mind, it remains totally inscrutable.