Apr
20
20
Dear Washington Post,
cc: David Finkel
re: Angry-left-blogger article of 4/15/06
The Philly Inquirer ate your lunch.
Best,
Angry McBloggington
PS: Joe Pulitzer called and said he wants his ass back.
[zweet! envelope. new sheet. tikatikatikatik. ahem.]
Dear Philadelphia Inquirer,
cc: Daniel Rubin
re: blog article of 4/15/06
Ahem.
Thanks, and keep up the good work!
A. McB.
Lucy said,
April 20, 2006 at 21:32
I think I am missing some subtext here. Did I use up all my brain cells fighting the GaryBot and you-know-who from yesterday? (please don’t say “her” name.)
Jas said,
April 20, 2006 at 21:43
Thanks! I had no idea how to type the sound of a piece of paper being extracted from a typewriter with righteous fervor…
Doug said,
April 20, 2006 at 22:31
I can remember when I was a young, apple-cheeked, idealistic journalism student back in the mid-’90s and I could think of no higher calling than to work for the Washington Post. Oh, such sunny times.
Fast-forward to 10 years later, by which time I’d realized 1) journalism is mostly a crock, which isn’t the Washington Post’s fault, and 2) the Post sucks, which is.
Sigh.
Gratis said,
April 20, 2006 at 22:34
Nice article in Philly. Maybe WaPo can take some lessons.
Pinko Punko said,
April 20, 2006 at 23:02
Yeah and that Finkel cobag has reproted from crazy places and is a legitimate guy, but this piece was so half-ass, nay, quarter ass, nay 10% ass MAX, that it was really more a shmear of crap on some newsprint.
annieangel said,
April 20, 2006 at 23:06
The medium is the message.
Hi, Lucy!
Jillian said,
April 20, 2006 at 23:26
Lucy, the WaPo published an absolutely dreadful, content free “article” on lefty bloggers last week. The entire point of the article seemed to be “Look how angry they are! Gee, aren’t they angry? Boy, they sure are angry!”. There was no context, no depth, no contextualization - nada.
Now, the Philly Inquirer comes along and, in about half the total number of column inches, provides an article on lefty bloggers that touches on some of the same “negative” emotions, but manages to provide some context that shows the blogger as a person who has angry emotions sometimes, instead of a throbbing ball of hatred that wakes up in the morning and gets their hate on.
annieangel said,
April 20, 2006 at 23:32
The content is the audience.
Lucy said,
April 20, 2006 at 23:43
Oh, I see, Jillian. I did read the article on the famous Maryscott O’Connor, which was silly, trivial, and a waste of everyone’s time. But I didn’t get the point of comparison here. Maybe it was because of the talk of ass-handing and lunch-eating. Too many metaphors after a long day of work and not-work. Thanks!
annieangel said,
April 20, 2006 at 23:59
which was silly, trivial, and a waste of everyone’s time
As I said, the content is the audience.
billmon said,
April 21, 2006 at 0:15
“Now, the Philly Inquirer comes along and . . . shows the blogger as a person who has angry emotions sometimes, instead of a throbbing ball of hatred that wakes up in the morning and gets their hate on.”
Well, I TRY not to. But those filthy right-wing Nazi sons of stinking scumsucking dogs make it awfully hard sometimes.
Lucy said,
April 21, 2006 at 0:23
Hey, Billmon! Nice to see you here. Can you work in the name “Chimpy McHitlerburton” somehow in your next posting?
Ginger Yellow said,
April 21, 2006 at 2:56
Also some expletives would be nice. You fucking articulate fuck.