Because blog self-love doesn't appeal to me...
Let's push over a sacred cow today.
gothamist.com
I really do like this site, they have much to offer. The interviews are particularly excellent, as long as you don't count any of the interviews since Krucoff left.
But I do have a criticism. It burns inside of me.
Look at today's post regarding the 2005 Zagat's Guide. The first paragraph is as follows:
I completely despise it when they start off any conversation about culture, art, media, or anything as if the entire audience were advanced experts on the topic - especially things that involve spending lots of money. When you tell me - someone who reads a lot about restaurants - about the new Zagat's guide, my first question would logically be, "What are the highlights?" They assume your first question is, "Oh, so how did they address [insert-new-and-trendy here]?" This is half-name-dropping, half-know-it-all-attitude. They do this so often. Way too often. It got worse as they divided up people into topics, as they now all parrot that style for so many different things and write as "Gothamist". They frequently offend with restaurants, art, and music - and sometimes with celebrities and blog culture, too.
Wanna know a little secret? If you write for Gothamist, you likely can't afford Per Se - not to eat there enough to form a reliable opinion. And you probably can't get a reservation at all, either. (Cue the Patrick Bateman deep psychotic rage - I despise my own mortality as measured by my ability to gain admission to and afford obscenely expensive restaurants)
I've said previously - not here, so don't look for it - that their knowledge and curiosity about these topics is impressive and admirable, but it does them a great disservice to pretend to be high-perched and ostentatious. They fly over their audience unapologetically. They lose credibility in the process. They're like the archetypal cocktail party know-it-all. Not too unlike the fashion section of Maxim - how the fuck do you post "How to get women at a cowboy bar" in the FOB and then recommend $2,000 suits and $200 ties in the BOB? Note that Gothamist doesn't have pictures of scantily clad women to make up for their failings, so it's really an apples to oranges comparison.
Do I do this? Yes, but it's all tongue-and-cheek. You'll know when I'm personally familiar with someone in a news story that I reference, but until that time, I think it's clear that I'm just a guy who reads the papers and surfs the web. I know as much as Page Six told me. I just have a pretty good memory. I am not a socialite, celebrity, or insider. I only laugh at them on the web.
It's likely that Jen will throw a drink in my face at the next bloggers' event for saying all of this. :(
gothamist.com
I really do like this site, they have much to offer. The interviews are particularly excellent, as long as you don't count any of the interviews since Krucoff left.
But I do have a criticism. It burns inside of me.
Look at today's post regarding the 2005 Zagat's Guide. The first paragraph is as follows:
The 2005 edition of the Zagat New York City Restaurant Guide is out today, and no, per se didn't blow everyone else out of the water -- at least not yet. Although it earned 29 out of 30 points in all three categories -- food, decor, and service -- it was too new to qualify for this year's guide.
I completely despise it when they start off any conversation about culture, art, media, or anything as if the entire audience were advanced experts on the topic - especially things that involve spending lots of money. When you tell me - someone who reads a lot about restaurants - about the new Zagat's guide, my first question would logically be, "What are the highlights?" They assume your first question is, "Oh, so how did they address [insert-new-and-trendy here]?" This is half-name-dropping, half-know-it-all-attitude. They do this so often. Way too often. It got worse as they divided up people into topics, as they now all parrot that style for so many different things and write as "Gothamist". They frequently offend with restaurants, art, and music - and sometimes with celebrities and blog culture, too.
Wanna know a little secret? If you write for Gothamist, you likely can't afford Per Se - not to eat there enough to form a reliable opinion. And you probably can't get a reservation at all, either. (Cue the Patrick Bateman deep psychotic rage - I despise my own mortality as measured by my ability to gain admission to and afford obscenely expensive restaurants)
I've said previously - not here, so don't look for it - that their knowledge and curiosity about these topics is impressive and admirable, but it does them a great disservice to pretend to be high-perched and ostentatious. They fly over their audience unapologetically. They lose credibility in the process. They're like the archetypal cocktail party know-it-all. Not too unlike the fashion section of Maxim - how the fuck do you post "How to get women at a cowboy bar" in the FOB and then recommend $2,000 suits and $200 ties in the BOB? Note that Gothamist doesn't have pictures of scantily clad women to make up for their failings, so it's really an apples to oranges comparison.
Do I do this? Yes, but it's all tongue-and-cheek. You'll know when I'm personally familiar with someone in a news story that I reference, but until that time, I think it's clear that I'm just a guy who reads the papers and surfs the web. I know as much as Page Six told me. I just have a pretty good memory. I am not a socialite, celebrity, or insider. I only laugh at them on the web.
It's likely that Jen will throw a drink in my face at the next bloggers' event for saying all of this. :(
posted by Brian Van at
10:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home