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

    • Well, they usually weren't on the show at the time for long until the late 90's. But yeah, they really deserved a story centered on them, and not through the lens of Reva.
    • Chelsea was doing the absolute most today! Why was she introducing her sister to a woman she doesnt know? That whole scene was embarrassing. Madison needs to stay away from her bc she is too immature
    • Gosh, what a waste with Lunacy. Why have her live with $B, reveal Finn, pardon her, etc What makes this story incredibly hollow is that what Luna is asking isn't unreasonable - to spend time with her cousin father. She's not asking to move in with them. How hard with it be for Finn to throw her a bone by, say, I'll meet you for lunch/coffee once at week at the hospital cafeteria. Lunacy isn't going to hurt Finn. In fact, all her crimes were related to finding her father and it turns out to be someone she's loved her entire life. Instead of course-correcting the nonsense of last summer, Brad somehow found a way to make this worse! That's a skill... Of all the younger actors B&B has cast during the past 5 years, LY has shown the most growth and range. Why get rid of her? 
    • On the subject of sets (seems more interesting to discuss than the actual show)  Some sets we don't see anymore Lauren/Michael apartment (haven't seen that in years) Victoria's house (are Marian/Tessa living there?) Apartment above Crimson Lights (I think Chelsea was the last resident) Penthouse (Lily's home) Chancellor Estate (Devon/Abby) Chancellor office (once Dark Horse) Nick's house GCAC room (used as residence/hotel room for several characters) Some of these may pop up again. The tack house,for example, was not seen for many months before being used again. Have I missed anything?
    • Thanks for searching through everything. Worked on them so long, just too lazy to check for those links myself, so I am glad you chose to do it! I guess I never did type out anything for 1973-1977 in regards to the preemptions, but they are on the charts at least (and this far back, they don't seem to do any of those "breakouts" anymore, so things are simpler in the 1970's, so eventually I could type those out). 
    • I dump on the Y&R sets problem all the time, but BOLD is no better -- and they're not even introducing new sets. All of their sets are years old, and very few look like they're inhabited by people with money. Is that going to change with this move? I'd rather they save the money spent on another remote, which is no better than an HGTV travelogue, and get some new/better sets.
    • The donut posts here make up for a Friday show that was barely meh. Aside from seeing Anna, I really didn't care much about anything else. While I understand the thought behind breaking up all the sadness with "other scenes," I'd rather they moved right to John's funeral. Instead of hearing a stupid story about John changing some minor character's tire 20 years ago, just move on to the crying. I also thought the Chad and Cat scenes were a waste. I realize not everyone is devastated by John's death to the point of not functioning, but going sky diving is a choice. By the way, Jack and Jennifer are giving me nothing on this return. Please leave asap. DAYS did such a great job with John's death, so ending the week this way was a letdown.
    • Add Dr. Montgomery to list of fine women on this show! I hope the show goes forward with Madison/Chelsea and then once they're developed, bring back Allison, who is now divorced or a widow, for a Madison/Chelsea/Allison triangle.  It would definitely be the hottest triangle in daytime.  
    • I wonder if Linda Bloodworth-Thomason had Kim in mind for any of her other characters/series. If they intended Allison Sugarbaker (Julia Duffy's character) to be more in line with who Suzanne was/Delta Burke's portrayal-persona, then I think Kim would have aced that. Yes, it would have been odd, Kim having previously played a different character (from a different family), but Designing Women wouldn't have been the first show with that issue. Or maybe Kim could have played Beth Broderick's role on Hearts Afire. Or Patricia Heaton's role on Women of the House.
    • Sony is probably waiting until Y&R’s lease is up as well. All of TV City is going to be gutted, so they have to relocate at some point. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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