Does business own the language update
September 25, 2007Now the NY Times (or is it dollar-crazed AOL) is trademarking President Bush. How much would you pay?
Now the NY Times (or is it dollar-crazed AOL) is trademarking President Bush. How much would you pay?
Yes, it’s truly the dog days of summer.
Flo and Lucky, the adorable black Labs of the Motion Picture Association of America, are doing the perfect PR tour. A story about them ran on CBS Radio and they were featured sniffing out DVDs in luggage on the NBC morning show (Dan Glickman, head of the MPAA, has the sense to stand back and let the dogs upstage him). The dogs even made the New York Times with their anti-piracy pitch. (BTW, note the horrendous decline of copyediting in the so-called ‘newspaper of record’–the paper claims the dog’s handler, Neil Powell, is from “Newcastle, Northern Island.”) Perhaps it was the IRT terrorists who battled for control of Northern Island?
Yes, Flo and Lucky and the perfect spokesdogs for the MPAA. They’re adorable, and they don’t say anything (or drive drunk, flash their private parts or take drugs not prescribed by their veternarian.) So not only can their PR handlers put words in their mouths, they never have to retract the dumb things they’ve said.
The New York Times and the Baltimore Sun are better than you. They can break the embargo on the new Harry Potter book with impunity and justify themselves. Spoiling the story for eager readers is just collateral damage from their lofty search for truth and justice (and the not-so-lofty one of scooping their competitors.)
Rachel Sklar feels righteous rage. So does J.K. Rowling.
“I am staggered that some American newspapers have decided to publish purported spoilers in the form of reviews in complete disregard of the wishes of literally millions of readers, particularly children,” she said. “I am incredibly grateful to all those newspapers, booksellers and others who have chosen not to attempt to spoil Harry’s last adventure for fans.”
The Times review is here; I made sure not to read it as my silent protest, so I don’t know what it says.
The Times has responded to the Internet age in the same way as the scumbags who videotape Hollywood movies in the theatre and sell them on the street. No more high-minded morality lectures from the NY Times, please.
Early in my journalistic career, I spent five years writing for the National Enquirer. People asked how I could live with myself, instead of writing for a ‘real’ newspaper. I tried to tell them that standards of verification at the Enquirer were just as high as the New York Times. Indeed, it was not the Enquirer, but the NY Times, that named the alleged victim in the 1991 Patrick Kennedy Smith rape case.
So I like to say that the rest of the media has jumped right down into the gutter with the Enquirer. It started with Presidential candidate Gary Hart being ‘outed’ for his extra-marital affair, picked up steam with the orgiastic OJ Simpson coverage, and snowballed to the bottom of the hill with the airtime and precious ink devoted to Paris.
Some outlets pretend their Paris coverage is about ‘issues’, such as this LA Times Paris Hilton story (one of three they run each day) how rich and poor are treated in jail, but most just go for the breathless pandering.
The NY Times had a front-page story on Paris. And yes, it was an ‘issue’ piece about ‘celebrity justice’–a figleaf for their naked ambition covering the woman they so primly call Ms. Hilton.
Donna Rice and Gary Hart on the yacht Monkey Business.