Posts tagged ‘Culture ‘
The New York Observer reports that Rupert Murdoch is planning to add a lavish weekend culture section to his new American flagship paper, The Wall Street Journal, focused mostly on the New York arts scene.
Has Murdoch – whose cultural commentary until now was limited to New York Post headlines like “Wacko Jacko Backo,” on the occasion of Michael Jackson first comeback tour – suddenly developed a taste for opera, ballet, or experimental video art?
Nah. He just wants to fuck the New York Times into the ground by spending money (which the Times no longer has) on a smarter alternative to the Times’ Arts & Leisure section, outdoing the Gray Lady in an area where she once excelled but where Murdoch now thinks she sucks dick.
The Observer got a couple Journal insiders to fill them in on one of Murdoch’s closed-door strategy sessions:
[Murdoch] said that The Times’ coverage was lightweight and uninteresting, according to two people present. Mr. Murdoch said if The Journal could strengthen its culture coverage, it would be easy to pluck off Times readers and advertisers.
Maybe so. But, come to think of it, how many people will still be advertising in newspapers, or even reading them, ten years from now? Not a lot.
Our bet is that Murdoch doesn’t care. If he has to siphon profits from NewsCorp’s mega-lucrative TV, cable, and internet ventures in order to put the Times out of business, he’ll do it.
Anyway, do you think he’ll cover the trans-sexual cabaret scene? If so, I could give him a few leads…
Add a comment July 10, 2009
Q: Why does NYTimes Book Review editor Sam Tanenhaus wear that shit-eating grin?
A: Because he really does eat shit!
Last week’s post on the nepotism/conflict-of-interest scandal at the New York Times book review seems to have gotten picked up (without attribution!) by a bunch of right-wing wacko bloggers who have recast the story as a case of liberal media bias. These guys only know one tune and they whistle it all day long, so it’s worthwhile to revisit the facts to set things straight.
For those of you who don’t remember last week’s post:
Gawker reports that Lynn Dolnick, a member of the ruling Sulzberger family and a director of the Times corporate board, appears to be receiving more than her share of deference from the supposedly independent editors of the book review. They’ve gone into overdrive promoting a mediocre biography of an art forger by Lynn Dolnick’s husband Edward Dolnick even though everyone from The Chicago Tribune to the New Yorker says that another new book on the same subject–totally unmentioned by the Times’ book reviewers–is far better.
Now the issue here, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with liberal bias. Having done a little research (much as I hate work in any form) it turns out that the other book is called “The Man Who Made Vermeers” by an author named Jonathan Lopez, and it is not particularly more conservative or liberal than Dolnick’s book. It’s just deeper and better written, at least according to Peter Schjeldahl of the New Yorker, who cites the Lopez book for its “profoundly researched, focused, absorbing depth.”
So, the point isn’t that the Times is run by a bunch of liberal sacks of shit. The point is that it’s run by a bunch of pompous, lying sacks of shit. And therein lies the critical difference.
For instance, consider the case of well-known pompous sack of shit Sam Tanenhaus, editor of the Times book review. In a recent interview in – where else? – the Times, he held forth on how great and important the NYTBR really is:
Our mission is very simple: to publish lively, informed, provocative criticism on the widest-possible range of books and also to provide a kind of snapshot of the literary culture as it exists in our particular moment through profiles, essays and reported articles. There are many, many books published each year – hundreds stream into my office in the course of a week. Our job is to tell you which ones we think matter most, and why…
How many people reading this self-important crap would know that the real reason Tanenhaus thinks a book “matters” is that it was written by the dilettante scribbler husband of his boss’s cousin, who just happens to own a couple million shares of NYT Company stock herself, personally? Is there a footnote to Tanenhaus’s interview that tells us, uhm, that he’s actually just a corporate lackey who does what the fuck he’s told? Or maybe we’re supposed to assume that anyone who looks like such an obvious a-hole has to be full of shit…
In any case, liberalism has got nothing to do with it.
11 comments July 7, 2009
Several blogs we follow have been howling about sleazy behavior at the oh-so-high-brow New York Times Book Review. Lynn Dolnick, a member of the ruling Sulzberger family and a director of the Times corporate board, appears to be receiving more than her share of deference from the supposedly independent editors of the book review. They’ve gone into overdrive promoting a mediocre biography of an art forger by Lynn’s husband Edward Dolnick, even though everyone from The Chicago Tribune to the New Yorker says that another new book on the same subject–totally unmentioned by the Times’ book reviewers–is far better. Gawker, which is the real newspaper of record as far as we’re concerned, seems to have broken the story first, but it’s also gotten play in the NY Post, Galleycat, Litopia, etc. The story has even made it into 2nd Life, where a totally hot virtual-reality avatar named Lillie Yifu has read both books and weighed in against the Times nepo-tome. Personally, we’re always willing to take book recommendations from a slinky cartoon girl with a truly banging bod. (Check out hot Lillie, below.)
Add a comment June 27, 2009