If you didn’t know any better, you’d think the publishing impresario was feeling just a titch…defensive.

But Thursday night, Denton hosted a gathering of 100-plus chitty-chatty newsish media types at his SoHo loft, and there he seemed quite confident again. Midway through his cocktail party, he dimmed the lights, clambered up on a windowsill and toasted his sales team, his technical team and his writers. As well as former New York congressman Chris Lee.

And then he played us this movie, which shows quite clearly what he’s trying to do with his properties. He wants to morph them from “blogs” into something more ambitious, but also older: He wants them to be like TV.

A Day in the Life of Gawker Media – FINAL from source/record on Vimeo.

That pitch has been enough to raise $19 million for the Pasedena, Calif.-based company, and now it has added another $9 million in a round led by Comcast’s venture capital arm. Earlier investors Idealab, Rustic Canyon Partners, Tribune Company and Trinity Ventures have all re-upped as well.

Perfect Market‘s main offering is a service that hosts big publishers’ old stories in a Google-friendly way, and sells ads against the archived content. The very short pitch: Why let Demand Media and its ilk get all the search ad dollars?

Things are getting more interesting now, though, as the company rolls out analytics and a dashboard that is supposed to help writers and editors figure out how to make the stories they’re writing now make more money in the future, via SEO-like tips.

And they’ll get very interesting down the road, as Perfect Market gives writers and editors the ability to help choose stories that are more likely to generate ad revenue down the line.

That’s either cunning or creepy, or maybe both, but the company isn’t there yet. It has been testing a version of its analytics package with the Tribune-owned Orlando Sentinel, and says it is working on a 2.0 version of its software for release this year. We’ll check back with the company later on….

Or, if you prefer, you can think of them as very long magazine articles. Here’s the company’s description of the new program:

Today, Amazon is announcing that it will launch “Kindle Singles”—Kindle books that are twice the length of a New Yorker feature or as much as a few chapters of a typical book. Kindle Singles will have their own section in the Kindle Store and be priced much less than a typical book. Today’s announcement is a call to serious writers, thinkers, scientists, business leaders, historians, politicians and publishers to join Amazon in making such works available to readers around the world.

Amazon being Amazon (AMZN), there’s nothing else of substance in its press release, but I have asked the company to answer some basic questions. From my email to Amazon PR:

1) Please provide an anticipated pricing range
2) Please explain how wholesale pricing will work
3) Is this program directed at conventional publishers, or does Amazon anticipate that most of the Singles will be self-published by the authors themselves?

UPDATE: Here’s Amazon’s response. Apologies for not getting these up sooner: Amazon sent them along shortly after I posted my story Tuesday morning, but somehow they were swallowed up in an email vortex–some sort of recurring problem I have with Apple Mail client and Google App email.

Anyway:

1) Prices will be less than a typical book.

2) With any particular publisher, pricing and terms will be consistent with our general terms with that publisher.

3) We expect to work directly with publishers and also for writers themselves to publish Kindle Singles.

CEO Tim Armstrong tells The Wall Street Journal about plans he has previously hinted about–“a new digital-newsroom system that uses a series of algorithms to predict the types of stories, videos and photos that will be most popular with consumers and marketers.”

The idea is that even a brain-dead editor knows that people want to read about Tiger Woods–and AOL’s coverage includes a 500-slide (!) slide show. But there are plenty of other stories that will go unassigned without a computer’s help. For example:

AOL says its new system determined that the most popular topic on the Web last Tuesday was “crib recalls,” following news of a massive recall by Stork Craft Manufacturing of Canada. AOL had only one story on its sites on the recall. But, if the new system had been live, editors would have geared up to supply stories on the subject from a number of angles, the company says.

This is the flip side to AOL’s hiring binge of the past year, where it scooped up a small army of veteran writers and editors. And it has a certain logic to it. Why wouldn’t a publisher want to publish things that readers want to read and advertisers want to sponsor?

Of course, this also creeps the heck out of people with traditional notions of journalism, or even “content production.” Including some of those recent hires. The company has been trying to soothe employees’ fears, but given that AOL is letting lots of people go, you’re not going to hear many writers and editors carping about this openly.

Investors who are going to own AOL after it spins off from Time Warner (TWX) next month are supposed to be cheered by the plan. It has a hint of Google (GOOG) to it, which makes sense given Armstrong’s long tenure there. And it sounds very similar to Demand Media, the much buzzed about content-creation factory.

AOL’s plan also sounds very similar to Associated Content, a search-driven content mill run by Armstrong’s former co-worker, Patrick Keane. Armstrong also happens to be an investor in the site, which raised a $6 million B round last spring that valued the company at $43 million. And earlier this year, AOL explored a purchase, sources say.

But while Armstrong ended up buying Patch Media, another start-up where he was an investor, he never pulled the trigger on Associated Content. Question: Does his new platform make a future deal more or less likely?

Two thoughts on the Huffington Post’s newly announced $1.75 million “Huffington Post Investigative Fund”:

• It took a while, but Arianna Huffington has finally agreed to start paying her writers. Not the army of bloggers who contribute to the site, mind you. But the fund’s money is earmarked for “10 staff journalists who will primarily coordinate stories with freelancers,” she tells the AP. I predict that they’ll also have to hire an admin to deal with the deluge of pitches and resumes.
• The fund won’t solve the gaping hole opening up in American journalism: The disappearing beat writers who used to cover important but unsexy topics day in and day out, like health care, education or municipal government. But it does provide a nice parallel for the role of “investigative journalism” at most newspapers over the past couple decades: specialized, high-profile projects that didn’t have a commercial payoff and were underwritten by the papers’ other sections.

And one other thought: It’s easy enough to be cynical about this venture, but a lot of it sounds appealing, at least in theory. I’m particularly interested in the notion that the fund’s output “will be free for any media outlet to publish simultaneously.” Look forward to seeing the results.

Of all the many videos out there, the most promising to me have been the many, many spoof videos the writers have done about the strike that just ended.

Along with terrific videos of the strike itself from the front lines at places like United Hollywood, there were tons of really well-produced online videos by writers, who are now back to plotting sitcoms and dramas for television and writing film blockbusters.

Too bad, as they have done some amazing work in the online space and one hopes it will continue.

Here is a very funny one called “How the Writers Strike Ended: Script Cops”:

In fact, it feels like the first good stuff to come out of Hollywood made specifically for the Web, rather than a rehashing of hash and repurposed hackery. Nothing like a crisis to focus on what is really important!

While it is a tad violent, although more in a Tom-and-Jerry way, here’s a video from Alec McNayr, a producer with Space Shank Media, about how the talks are really going: