“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.”
That may sound a little defensive (and even a touch paranoid?), but it’s not far off to say that the demographic that cared about this story most was the New York new media crowd. That group’s open access to megaphones and soapboxes belies its exceedingly small and unrepresentative nature — so much so that with a collective eye blink it can light up the blogosphere with vituperative chatter about what’s, after all, just a story about the by now unsurprising pitfalls of playing with the Web’s peephole-filled boundaries between public and private.

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

in

by

Tags:

Comments

2 responses to ““the scrutiny her piece received from professional bloggers“”

  1. Assistant Village Idiot Avatar

    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.

  2. Sean Kinsell Avatar

    “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?