Jump to content

The Media/Journalism Thread


Faulkner

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

In that Puck piece, they mention that the New York magazine editor Haskell "had been fending off a separate P.R. controversy regarding an article about cat owners and new mothers."
The Puck author didn't link to that but said we could google it.

Oh I vividly remember that horrid article, unfortunately, and I'm so glad Puck didn't link to it because it was horrific.

That article was in New York magazine's "the Cut" section and published August 12 -- at the time, I happened across it being slammed online, and read part of it, but it was so gross that, at the time, I couldn't stomach reading the whole thing. 

Back then, I didn't even notice who the publisher was, because I was so angry at the anonymous author. But the description today in Puck made realize where I had seen it, and I easily found it just now, and read it in full.

The Cut/ NewYork Magazine did a several-part series on pet ownership.  This particular article was anonymously written by a woman with a new baby who severely neglected her cat and hoped the cat might die.  I guess they thought it was trendy or edgy or something? It was really horrific.  At the bottom of the online version of that article: hundreds of angry comments from readers.


It's not relevant to the topic being discussed here of Olivia Nuzzi's lack of journalistic integrity. 

But it is relevant to the topic of the ickiness of nymag.com and its editor trying to clean up the magazine's messes.


The original article had an opening blurb paragraph in italics, explaining that it was "part of a series on the ethics of pet ownership". 
I see now that the magazine has since updated that blurb to add more sentences onto it, with their attempt to clean up the controversy by giving some indirect verification that the cat is okay but... still.  ewww.

Here are links to the original, and the version with attempt to fix it in the opening blurb.
TRIGGER warning: Don't read this if you want to stay sane.
Or just read and compare the opening blurbs and don't read the actual article.

August 12, 2024 original article --
version archived August 16 when it had 204 reader comments
https://archive.ph/909SE

Sept. 19, 2024 version with updated opening blurb (354 reader comments)
https://archive.is/0m9X5

Edited by janea4old
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

@Vee Thanks. I saw some of her sycophants going around saying it wasn't an actual affair and the whole thing was being overblown, or who cares this is just typical of the industry, but if he is going around showing smut shots of her then it shows just how dangerous her actions were. And it shows just what a piece of trash RFK Jr is, 70 years old and still the toxic frat bro at heart. 

@janea4old That's horrible. Another example of the nihilist, slimy Gawker mentality in so many of those types of papers. The little I read about the article after you mentioned it sickened me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Please register in order to view this content

    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • It sure was!  With respect, how does that make sense?  These men are young, I don't see that. 
    • I hope this played better than it sounds, because I'm imagining two separate scenes (the attack by Arnie, and later Charles getting shot). In my mind, it should have been a fluid single sequence. I wonder if or how often "bastard" was uttered in this scene. Fare thee well, Christopher Reeve. I've said it before, but pop culture's gain was daytime's definite loss. Imagine seeing HIM day after day, year after year, decade after decade, conceivably until they stopped producing soaps in NYC.   Well, that answers my "bastard" question. Good lord, the roads of Rosehill are packed with high-strung drivers and/or pedestrians. More sequences that I hope played better than they sound.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I think Ben had already left while under Marland and only returned briefly to reconcile with Eve. The whole thing confuses me as I thought for a long time that Eve left the show to go be with him and that was when they reconciled, but it seems like he returned, they got back together, then he left and maybe they were still together until she left to join him? I have no idea.  It does seem like the interim writers were using some characters like Justin and Helena who were quickly dumped under Kobe/Long, which is a shame. Helena is one of those characters who likely always had a shelf life but Rose Alaio was such a vibrant screen presence, if Kobe/Long had just been patient, she likely would have fit in well in the Reva era.
    • Also, the lawsuit story was not the right story to bring Naomi and Bill into a court battle since those types of lawsuits are usually resolved via settlements.
    • I know that Sara did eventually become Carrie's therapist, but I was curious if the show had her make comments regarding Carrie's stunts of making it seem as though Justin was cheating on Jackie.  Given that Justin cheated on Sara with both Jackie and Brandy, I wondered if it was wise of her to counsel Carrie given the conflict of interest involved. @DRW50I think once Adam/Sara end up married.. Marland didn't see any reason to explore Sara's personal life after the actor playing Adam was released.  I know that Sara lasts until at least Christmas 1982 on the show.. but I don't think she ended up staying on for very long into 1983. The period between Marland quitting and Pam Long starting was the perfect time to clean house on characters that had outgrown their usefulness  (i.e. Ben, Evie, Sara, Jennifer, Morgan).. and tying up stories started by Marland that were too complex (Mona Enright, Mark/Jennifer/Amanda triangle).
    • Unpopular opinion:  The focus on the soap opera tropes over the mysteries and crimes was partly what did the show in.  Also, featuring characters not involved in the legal, police, and criminal elements also hurt the show and took away what made it unique. Featuring characters like Jody, Raven, Sky, etc hurt the show long term.  The show ABCified starting in 1976/1977 and then went through a youthification period starting in 1981.  
    • I feel like the lawsuit storyline was resolved quickly because the show didn’t want to spring for more sets.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy