Um, is this one of those pretend from-the-future think pieces?

So I’m perusing LA Citybeat while I wait for my triple espresso-shot peppermint/egg-nog latte. (RIP Chantico, by the way. We hardly knew thee.) Specifically I’m reading Mick Farren’s cover story on the state of the media in 2005. You know, the internet is big, print is dying, Bush sucks, etc. And somewhere in the middle, I come to this paragraph (my bold):

If not pointless, money certainly poses a problem on the contemporary Internet. Irrespective of content, some sites make truckloads of cash, and others make none. You’ll see no hint of Craigslist post-capitalism in blog-bundling operations like the highly successful Gawker Media, or the heavily funded but failing Pajamas Media. The idea in both cases was to combine like-thinking blogs and maximize ad sales. Gawker mogul Nick Denton made a smart move into the gossip business with the Washington raunch of Wonkette and the L.A. snide of Defamer, and a formula that media site Click Z described as find a niche topic, recruit a talented and crass young writer, come up with an irresistible title, promote like hell, and wait for advertisers to call. The concept paid off late last year for Denton when The New York Times bought Gawker for a reported $32 million.

Seriously, if this is one of those pretend from-the-future pieces, the generally accepted protocol is to end it with a line like. “Psyche! I’m writing this piece as if it were 3228, not 2006! Fooled ya!!!” Or something like that. And if it’s not from the future, uh, who reported that exactly?

UPDATE: Well, it turns out that someone did report that. But that someone was writing in the New York Press, which, as anyone who works for LA Citybeat should know, is one of those self-indulgent, poorly fact-checked alternative weeklies.