A brouhaha has built to a fever pitch over the past few days since the reputable New York Times Magazine (Sunday Edition) posted a cover story (a confessional essay) written by former gawker.com blogster - Emily Gould.
One commentator lamented the angst of the many,
"How can it be that such vapid foolishness be accorded the importance of a cover piece in the Times Magazine," Leo Dymkoski (?) raged in an obvious snit.
L.M. - ("lips moving", perhaps?) - demanded that the newsies at the top dog media outlet in New York City,
"Please stop embarrassing our generation with mindless prattle."
The flood of mostly negative comments poured into the portal so fast and furious - that the NYT's response forum was overwhelmed. Webmasters temporarily froze the discussion launch 'til they were able to clear a staggering backlog.
In the aftermath of the seismic quake that shook - not stirred - the blogs around the globe, Critics and media analysts hastened their plumming of the mystical depths for answers to "what just happened" - and concluded the musings were obviously more profound than "vagaries of internet micro-celebrity".
In one unsuspecting moment - a quiet "green light" for an off-beat feature - managed to unwittingly tap a vein of "media-world animus" lurking in the shadows, previously uncharted (or even imagined).
To some, Ms. Gould was simply narcisstic.
To others, self-absorbed.
Others lambasted the redcoat for "unapologetically pursuing a kind of reportage that featured her as the main character in every story and the people around her as supporting actors."
A reporter in the LA TIMES rubbed salt in the wound when he expressed the view that, "...thanks to the Internet, this kind of performance journalism - where the writer is her own subject - is gaining ground."
Well, that may be a bit harsh.
In some quarters, a blog is simply a new-fangled "diary", that spits out and sets adrift scratchy thoughts daily - left alone thereafter to pitch on their lonesome - on the tumultous waves of the media sea.
As to the issue of positioning one in the piece?
Well, in view of the myriad number of news outlets clawing about in the blogosphere just now, I surmise it behooves a writer to personalize a story - tell it from an intimate point of view - on occasion.
Otherwise - blog features drawing on the same tired old sources leveraged to all ad nauseam - would end up on the world-wide-web sorry tales - all carbon copies of each other.
Notwithstanding, irate readers in this instant scenario have another option. Why waste valuable grey matter sweating over such an insignificant tawdry issue?
Especially in view of the fact that to some,
"There is no such thing as bad publicity."
I disagree, but I'm probably in the minority in that regard.
Personally, I'd prefer to be bestowed with the prestigious honor of recognition in my chose field of endeavour, in a more dignified - rarefied light - when it comes to my moment in the sun.
In fact, a handful of bloggers accused the author of tyranical machinations, pointed the finger for fanning the flames for the sake of celebrity.
That is a far cry from penning an article innocently - or from the heart - then being hit by a tidal-wave of media attention in spite of the fact no bait was offered up seeking that end.
The former probably deserves the disgust of the madding crowd.
I was amused when one journalist inferred that Ms. Gould had broken some kind of code of ethics - pooh-poohed proper etiquette - or a blogger rule or regulation.
Is there a forbidden line in what one labeled - the peep-holed-filled boundaries of the Internet between the public and the private - where one dare not tread?
If so, then let's cut to the chase.
Is there a guide blog freshmen - or Internet newbies - can turn or subscribe to in a good-faith effort to fathom the social-political mores to adhere to...so that one may plot their musings to subtly jive with the axis of the Internet and its intricate myriad mysteries?
The dictionary has yet to list "blog" or "blogger" within the pages of their sacred march of words. Indeed, the internet - and its inhabitants - have yet to be fully defined literally or in a legally significant context. Go figure!
In my mind's eye, the Internet has the potential to be a thrilling adventure - "into the wild" and the "untamed" - and a virutal freewheeling territory ( a new frontier) - where the adventurous may be beckoned at a whim to explore - unhindered by the sluggish, prudish, high-strung few - who lack the intelligence, imagination, or vision to embrace it.
Let's not silence a voice because we don't warm up to the message it's transmitting.
Instead, apply the meaning of an old familiar phrase,
"Consider the source"
Then move on, unspoiled by the rude interruption.
Gloved ones gave gawker blogster the finger...
