Yeah, they're imitating Hunter S. Thompson without really getting what he was doing. The point of "Gonzo Journalism", as I understand it, was that the narrativ

Yeah, they're imitating Hunter S. Thompson without really getting what he was doing. The point of "Gonzo Journalism", as I understand it, was that the narrative around certain subjects (politics, drugs, America, etc) had become so toxically self-referential that there was simply no way to approach them objectively. Even if you could apply some strict journalistic standard, the reader would read it through such a noxious filter of propaganda that nothing would get through. The only sane response in that case, from his perspective, was to simply throw one's entire self into the fray, indulging your neuroses, compulsions, and desires in and amongst the people you were reporting on, then to pour your whole self onto the page and simply allow the reader and you, through the sacred bond of reading and writing, to commune in some kind of spirit plane above the propaganda and doublespeak. This leads to an (at the time) shocking blend of personal experiences and "on-topic" reporting. Of course decades later this kind of intermingling has become common and no longer shocks people. I think the essayists you are complaining about are adopting the "Gonzo" form, blending the personal with the topical, but without actually throwing their full selves into the world they are reporting. Thus the personal bits don't really bear any connection to the topical, and don't aid the reader in seeing through the subjectivity to the subject, the way Fear and Loathing did.