|
May 28, 2008
"the scrutiny her piece received from professional bloggers"
I guess that doesn't mean yours truly, because not only do I not make a living from blogging, but I never read, linked to, or knew who the complainant ("ex blogger" Emily Gould) was. At least, not until I saw the link from Ann Althouse, and read more: "They want me to be punished for having left that world, and for having criticized it," Gould wrote to me in an e-mail. "It's important to them that it be understood that my article, which on the surface might seem like an accomplishment, is actually a fluke, a mistake on the Times' part, attributable to pretty much anything besides relevance or skill."Hey wait a second! I never heard of her, but I don't want to punish her for leaving "that world" she left. I really and truly don't. Gould's shocking "expose" of "their" world of blogging is here, and it's a classic example of someone who wanted attention, got it, and now complains about the attention she got. More out of idle curiosity than anything else, I forced myself to slog through through her incredibly long and tedious screed, and while I'm at a loss to understand why she deserved the attention she got, that's just me. Perhaps if I were young and sexy and of the opposite sex I'd understand better. But I'm not and I don't. Still, I recognize that under the First Amendment, people are entitled to say anything or express themselves in any legal manner they want in order to get attention. If she makes money doing what constitutes entertainment, she has just as much right as Ann Coulter or Amanda Marcotte. Being paid lots of money for public assholeism is the American way. I don't mean to complain, though, because it appears that by complaining I might stand accused of "scrutinizing" Ms. Gould, who is apparently someone who wants unwanted attention so much she'll do anything to get it in order to complain. So I'm writing this post to say simply that I paid just enough attention to ascertain that this whole "flap" (if that's what it is) wasn't worthy of the attention I gave it. posted by Eric on 05.28.08 at 03:03 PM
Comments
"One of the things we are most interested in at the magazine are those lifestyle issues -- what we call the Way We Live Now issues -- that blend personal narratives with larger political or ethical or philosophical concerns." Doesn't it make you want to throw up? Sean Kinsell · May 29, 2008 11:40 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
May 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
May 2008
April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
What really happened? (I'll never have time to know....)
Clayton Cramer Is Running For Idaho State Senate Who says eagles don't carry off kids? Some pain is immoral Tiny laptop with a "real" keyboard? "the scrutiny her piece received from professional bloggers" Moving Electrons Not People Steal The Rich the little firehouse that couldn't beat the convention racket Conservative Funk
Links
Site Credits
|
|
She has a child's attitude. She wanted everyone to see her having private conversations. It is the elevated version of teenagers with their MySpace or Facebook page. They are horrified that publishing information about themselves publicly means that they don't have any control over who "the public" is.
Her reasons for writing negative things about blogging mean nothing to the NYT. They just think it's "interesting" that someone has anything critical to say about their competition. Just so people won't be drawn in by that blogging thing, y'know. It's a public service, really.