So says Lee Siegel, the media critic axed for sock-puppetry on his TNR blog, when the ace NYT interviewer Deborah Solomon comes up with "What are you talking about?" as the follow-up question after he says "putting a polemicist like myself in the blogosphere is like putting someone with an obesity problem in a chocolate factory."
The real answer to Solomon's question was that he was trying to set up one of those addiction theories. It's a disease, you know. But he backed off from his own bullshit. Fortunately. But there are probably self-help books and treatment programs for blogoholism already, right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
Yes it's true; I'm addicted to blogohol.
Lee Siegel: Please stop ridiculing my breasts.
Using profanity in a post.....
Not setting a very good example.
Peace, Maxine
Maxine is telling me I must wear a burqua.
Quick, who can he sue for causing his addiction?
What do you mean, Maxine? I think it's a splendid example of using profanity well. Have you been hitting Abe's bottle of blogohol again?
This could be a lurid '50's melodrama: "Stop me before I blog again!!!"
Starring Broderick Crawford as "Kos", Tab Hunter as "Instapundit", and Eve Arden as "Althouse."
He hits one nail on the head- the blogosphere can get emotional. I see that as a big advantage in drawing "eyeballs" versus the MSM which generally provides a kind of cut and paste serving of press releases or talking points vetted by focus groups. So, the MSM lacks energy and emotion.
Hell, your blog proved that in the last few days.
And I think what Siegle did was kinda clever and funny (radio talk show hosts do it all the time when they wind up their listeners).
But I disagree with Siegel on another point- the blogosphere or internets provides way more data (used to form logic) and information than the MSM could ever hope to dish out. And that is why the MSM has been caught in several FUBAS by the internets... examples include rathergate, Bush's rubber turkey, the Lebanon doctored photos, etc.
What I find interesting is that he claims that the sock-puppetry would have been ok had he not done it uder the aegis of the New Republic.
He hits one nail on the head- the blogosphere can get emotional. Yes, indeed. The anonymity allows people to say things that they would never consider saying were they face-to-face with the other person. I remember an old Dilbert cartoon where Wally says to Dilbert "Pretty brave in cyberspace, aren't you, flameboy?!"
I remember a comedian (can't remember who, unfortunately) who did a bit about "bullshit".
There's really no other word like it. In the dictionary it says "Bullshit (n) 1. nonsense". He felt it should say "Bullshi (n) 1. nonsense; 2. BULLSHIT!"
On Bullshit . . .
There's a slim, but scholarly tome on the subject, here.
And of course, there's the rather fun Showtime series, currently in its 4th season (season one, and two are available on DVD).
Or XWL, you can watch a few episodes via google.
P&T's BS is one of two reasons I subscribe to Showtime. Weeds is the second. :)
Ron, your '50's melodrama idea is priceless, and the casting is...well...inspired.
Eve Arden!
Imagine Our Miss Brooks at a computer with one eyebrow slightly arched and that put-upon, why-do-I-have-to suffer-these-fools smile.
Sorry, Ann, but Ron has planted that image, and I can't get rid of it. You could do a lot worse, though, than Eve Arden.
Does anybody under the age of 50 have any idea what we're talking about?
He's a boob.
Never having been a New Republic reader, I only first heard of Siegel when the sock-puppet thing happened. After reading his Deborah Solomon interview in yesterday's Times magazine, I can't imagine I missed much. He came off like an idiot. And a glib idiot at that.
There have been times in my life when I wish I had backed off my own bullshit. Don't let the profanity prudes get to you, Professor Althouse. As Mark Twain noted, there is an art to cussing.
Post a Comment