19 April, 2006

Circle Jerking With Spragens

I've barely made it past the first sentence in Spragens' self-defence. What's got me extremely peeved is this:
Turns out, when you write about bloggers, they write back. So it's been one hell of a circle-jerk over the past week as computer jockeys around the country weighed in and inveighed upon the Bill Hobbs affair,


Let me get this straight. If Spragens covers the story, it's legitimate news. But once anyone else decides to have an opinion they're just wanking?

Then we have THIS patronising nugget:

First, for those with day jobs, a quick recap of recent events


To Which the Katherinian Automatic Response Generator Says:

1. So, I guess you're not addressing this to Bill, who thanks in part to you no longer HAS a day job.
2. Everyone I read in the "clubby local blogosphere" has a day job. Every.single.one. And most of us are well-liked and well-respected at those jobs. We're publishers, ministers, designers, contractors, and SAHMs. And marketing professionals. And medical librarians. And musicians. And funnier than you are. Without trying.
3. Bite me.

Is an ersatz journalist with mainstream media credentials a fair target?


I don't know, sir. But once we decide for certain, you could be next.

UPDATE:

What is it with the Scene staff and their derision toward the blogosphere? Why all this snide mockery about everyone's employment status? Liz Garrigan's rebuttal STARTS OFF with another swipe.

How many bloggers actually have jobs? We don’t know, except to say one fewer now than before.


Well, clearly they don't actually read the blogs they so charmingly patronise. Because 99% of them mention the various jobs people have. With a few exceptions (Nashville Knucklehead) I know pretty much what everyone on my blogroll does for a living. And they all work. Even the SAHMs work. I get that it's "in" for Real Journalists ® to patronise the blogosphere. I just hope the staff of the Scene realises that next time they come out with a long sad story about a person who can't hold down a job for health reasons, and I write a letter to the editor about the inequities of working people footing the bill for TennnCare and I get about 10 emails back from the Scene's editor and the mother of the woman in the story and other folks they'll think about the way THEY'VE denegrated the jobless in these two columns. In other words, in Scene language it's wrong to question a person who doesn't work--if they've published a piece in the Scene. But it's perfectly alright to mock gainfully-employed people if they make the Scene look bad. And quite fine to be derisive about someone's job status.

9 Comments:

At 1:57 PM, April 19, 2006, Anonymous Sarcastro said...

How many bloggers actually read The Scene? We don’t know, except to say one fewer now than before.

 
At 2:51 PM, April 19, 2006, Blogger Ivy, the Great and Powerful said...

Ha, I thought just about the same thing when I read that. Actually, my exact thoughts were, "Bitches, I have TWO jobs, THREE children AND I have time to blog, so suck it."

Oh, and Sarcastro, love your response. :)

I also love when the word verification is kinda ironic. It's teaabgz.

 
At 3:06 PM, April 19, 2006, Blogger Bill Hobbs said...

Hah! I love you guys.

By the way, I do have a job. Just not a traditional job. I worked three hours today for which I'll be paid almost double what I'd have made in a full day at my old job.

 
At 3:08 PM, April 19, 2006, Blogger Bill Hobbs said...

Oh, and then I spent a few hours outside trimming the grass and killing weeds to make the backyard look nice because I want to have a bunch of great bloggers over for a "thanks for sticking by me" barbecue.

 
At 3:11 PM, April 19, 2006, Blogger Busy Mom said...

Excellent.

 
At 2:03 AM, April 20, 2006, Blogger mike said...

Nearly every blogger I know has a full time job and a family. They squeeze in blogging in early mornings, during lunch or in the evenings before bed. It's almost a second job.

Bloggers do it for love of writing. Liz and John write for money. You know what they call folks who do it for money. ;-)

 
At 11:03 AM, April 20, 2006, Blogger Michael said...

The Scene is probably worried that what with the much more talented writers in the blogsphere, their jobs might be in jeopoardy.

 
At 4:41 PM, April 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This story was near an end, although the churlish and juvenile Spragens and Garrigan columns gave the debacle a little more life. The one question that remains unanswered, and could ignite this firestorm again, is whether the Bredesen campaign had any links to this smear. The Mike Kopp connection is fishy but doesn't prove the Bredesen campaign authorized a hit.

So unless something comes out on that front I guess at this point we can debate winners, losers, and collateral damage.

WINNERS

Jim Bryson. I follow politics and had no idea Bryson had entered the governor's race until this exploded. What could have been a negative event actually helped cast Bryson as a very sympathetic character and gave him a helpful degree of name recognition.


Tennessee bloggers. Regardless of their politics, these (yes, Liz, employed) gadflys are a force to be reckoned with and have been for some time. The statewide blogosphere will be a major factor in the upcoming election.

The Nashville Tennessean. Oddly, this media dinosaur looked good after the dust settled. Lined up against its wannabe alternative opponent, the Tennessean actually looked damned good and almost created nostalgia for a time when print journalism ruled. OK, not, but you get my drift.

LOSERS

Bill Hobbs. He lost a job, and to be frank, quite a bit of face when he furiously backpedaled from a legitimate issue he raised. Bill will rapidly recover, though.

Mike Kopp. Actually, pushing the cartoon story to tarnish a political opponent was legitimate even if slimy. Yet it was Kopp's reaction to criticism, wherein he created what is widely believed to be a fictional story about neighborhood Muslim children, that will follow him the rest of his career. Fortunately for Kopp, he had an established reputation and probably will recover.

The Nashville Scene. After the alternative weekly was purchased by the Village Voice, many thought it would shake off a reputation for scandal and shoddy work as well as a preference for satire over investigative journalism. Alas, Spragens and Garrigan are more the symptoms than the cause of the paper's further decline, possibly brought on by a distant corporate management that has witnessed the flagship weekly also go into the tank.

COLLATERAL DAMAGE

The Bredesen campaign. Many assumed that the appearance of any opponent on the ballot would at least hold Bredesen's margin of victory way down. As noted above, until this flap few knew Jim Bryson was on the ballot. Republicans and many others who looked for a rationale not to vote for the governor this time out have found it, and what was to be a cakewalk is now a contest.



Rep. Jim Cooper. Incumbent U.S. representatives rarely are defeated, and this one will not lose any time soon. Nonetheless, congressmen who are out of sight and out of mind have the easiest time of it. Because of his association with one of the principles, Congressman Cooper is in the public eye to some degree. He will at least have to go through the motions of a campaign in the future.

Belmont. This venerable institution suffered the most collateral damage. It was damned if they did, damned if they didn't, and the perceived better choice for them proved not to be. The damage will be short-lived, though. Agree/disagree? Jay

 
At 12:34 PM, April 24, 2006, Blogger Patrick said...

Since when is working for the Nashville Scene a "real job?"

 

Post a Comment

<< Home