Sanjay Gupta Is A Dick In My Pants
Did you hear the news? Obsession is contagious. Yep, like an email virus or beer farts, it's prone to strike socially engineered networks regardless of physical proximity, intellectual capacity or intestinal solitude. It usually passes from host to host in a series of close-shaven whispers and failures to yield to good anal hygiene. Loose clothing only make it worse.
This makes it even more painful to drag the Elizabeth Spiers/TAM story into a third post but the gravitas-tional pull of this forwarded item makes it impossible to avoid:
So what do other people, especially those involved in bloggy meta-media coverage, who know Spiers have to say about a story that involves a somewhat notable blogger/media figure making a huge fuckin' stink on the pages of Slate/Washington Post?
Mediabistro and Jossip don't shirk their responsibility to mention it.
Jesse Oxfeld, New York magazine: "Before you brought it to my attention, I was unaware of both Elizabeth's Slate piece and the subsequent contretemps, and, to be honest, I've given both little thought since. I'm sure the rest of New York -- by which I mean the city, not the magazine, though this is certainly true for both -- cares even less."
Rachel Sklar, Huffington Post: "I genuinely fail to see where the story is. Truly. I had no problem with Elizabeth's piece or Slate's publishing of same and as a result am genuinely confused by (but also not that interested in) what I perceive to be the out-of-proportion response to it." On a follow-up where I asked about the perceived neutrality in the bulk of her writing, she responded: "...perhaps you missed my Sanjay Gupta is a dick post." HuffPo's Jason Linkins later deems the story link-worthy.
Choire Sicha, Gawker: No official comment but mumbled something about Nazis. (Sorry dude, one persecuted group at a time. I've helped the Jews and soon the Roma. The gays are at the end of the list!)
Alex Balk, Gawker and President of the Elizabeth Spiers Fan Club: No official comment. While it's rumored he breaks out in hives whenever I email him, he was probably too busy ganking gags from YM or couldn't figure out a tasteful way to photoshop her face into a burning airline Eno reference.
My Mom: "I just finished reading Slate and all the postings. The rebuttal letter is just as arrogant as the first. I do tip my hat to Mr. Smith and The Captain."
Sparks - "Angst In My Pants"
UPDATE: The omnivorous Rachel Sklar comments about her ON THE RECORD statement which I did not take out of context but if you want a fuller disclosure, I did ask her out for drinks by the end of our exchange. Here she goes...
A clarification, because Krucoff has been slipshod in his rendering of our correspondence on the matter, which consisted of over 20 emails, 2000 words, and way too much of my time. My comment about Sanja [ed.- oh go sic yourself, Rachel] Gupta was in direct response to Krucoff challenging me by saying "You're not exactly know (sic) for ruffling feathers or taking an actual position on something." Yes, flattery will get you everywhere. But so will pestering someone with inane questions (sample: "Do you consider yourself a Spiers Apologist?") [ed.- I'm not afraid to ask the tough questions], all of which were nonetheless answered fully and candidly, albeit including statements like "You've got to be kidding," "You're being an idiot," and "2003 called, it wants its hand-wringing overblown scandal back." Oh yes, and "Sheesh." Which is about where I am right now. [ed.- she said "no" on the drinks]
This makes it even more painful to drag the Elizabeth Spiers/TAM story into a third post but the gravitas-tional pull of this forwarded item makes it impossible to avoid:
Come now...Man, that's a first class ticket on El-Al-OL. If I didn't know any better (but I do), I would have assumed I wrote it in my sleep.
by Dana Vachon
It was a funny, well-written article with one unfortunate word choice and a poorly chosen title. Her broad point is that the disarray of Brazilian air transit invites disaster, and it's a valid one...
So what do other people, especially those involved in bloggy meta-media coverage, who know Spiers have to say about a story that involves a somewhat notable blogger/media figure making a huge fuckin' stink on the pages of Slate/Washington Post?
Sparks - "Angst In My Pants"
UPDATE: The omnivorous Rachel Sklar comments about her ON THE RECORD statement which I did not take out of context but if you want a fuller disclosure, I did ask her out for drinks by the end of our exchange. Here she goes...
A clarification, because Krucoff has been slipshod in his rendering of our correspondence on the matter, which consisted of over 20 emails, 2000 words, and way too much of my time. My comment about Sanja [ed.- oh go sic yourself, Rachel] Gupta was in direct response to Krucoff challenging me by saying "You're not exactly know (sic) for ruffling feathers or taking an actual position on something." Yes, flattery will get you everywhere. But so will pestering someone with inane questions (sample: "Do you consider yourself a Spiers Apologist?") [ed.- I'm not afraid to ask the tough questions], all of which were nonetheless answered fully and candidly, albeit including statements like "You've got to be kidding," "You're being an idiot," and "2003 called, it wants its hand-wringing overblown scandal back." Oh yes, and "Sheesh." Which is about where I am right now. [ed.- she said "no" on the drinks]
