If there's one thing we're absolutely sick of it's journalists complaining about other journalists for no reason except to revel in the glorious, righteous contrarianism of complaint. And we are about to complain about it. Ha, cause we're so contrarian! Check out my surprising viewpoint, baby! I'd like to start off my complaint by telling Washington City Paper editor Erik Wemple to shut up. Wemple's column, which I am now whining about, is him whining about the whining of the New York Times. Specifically, about the Times being disappointed at the fact that their pretty fucking awesome Sarah Palin blowout story last weekend didn't have the same resonance that it would have had in times past, because the media is overcrowded these days. ***WHICH IS TRUE.*** Okay then. Go, Wemple:
Here's a quote from NYT boss Bill Keller: "But we do want our work to be noticed, and I've been repeatedly surprised at the rich, important stories that fail to resonate the way they deserve." What has Keller so upset? Well, apparently, that three-bylined investigation of Sarah Palin that ran in this past Sunday's paper didn't bounce high enough for the big guy. "But this kind of work doesn't dominate the discussion the way it might have in elections past," said Keller. Poor thing.
Dude, who pissed in your corn flakes? Wemple is doing the knee-jerk "Whores, all of you!" thing that Andrea Peyser does. Let's translate: BILL KELLER: "Innocuous factual statement." ERIK WEMPLE: "Stop whining, bitch." Then Wemple notes that one of the reporters on the NYT story said that even though it got 1000 comments on the Times website, that still doesn't mean it had the national impact it would have had in times past. ***WHICH IS TRUE.*** That pisses Erik Wemple off. Doesn't the reporter know that his story was commented upon by none other than the Washington City Paper???
Can someone explain to me what he's talking about? Clearly those titans at the Times need to scroll back a bit on this blog, which earlier this week credited the Palin story as a masterful mix of narrative and investigative styles, though the blog item was silent on the slight impact the story had made.
Yes. Because any time a national reporter gives a quote in a news story, we may assume that his references to the media are intended to convey, exclusively, the work of the Washington City Paper's blog. Its impact is equal to that of all forms of national media combined in decades past.
What good journalist cares about impact anyhow?