FARK.com: (5012099) Latest bogus, media-created trend is criticizing the NY Times' many stories on bogus, media-created trends

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Latest bogus, media-created trend is criticizing the NY Times' many stories on bogus, media-created trends (gawker.com)		20
		More: Amusing, New York Times, Hamilton Nolan, road trip movies, U.S. senators, Run-On Nightmare

• • •

2035 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 09 Feb 2010 at 6:09 PM | Favorite | share:

more» |

Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends!

shirt it!

Share this link:

URL:

http://fk.cm/go/5012099

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

20 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

ne2d

2010-02-09 04:11:18 PM

Another essential element of the Times' template is to include a quote by some associate professor of something at some random college. "It really adds nothing to the substance of the article," said Emily Ayshford, who teaches media studies at Marlboro College in Marlboro, Vermont. "Its sole purpose is to provide the illusion of legitimacy to what is, essentially, an entirely made-up story."

jehovahs witness protection

2010-02-09 04:54:03 PM

It's no Daily Mail, that's for sure.

sigdiamond2000

2010-02-09 04:59:26 PM

Wait a minute...so you mean there aren't thousands of wealthy urban professionals who've decided to become "freegans" and live in their apartments with no heat or running water?

I refuse to believe that. I won't accept that.

/This sort of thing isn't unique to the NYT. Whenever you read an article in any publication about a cultural "trend," there's about a 99% chance that that trend is the direct result of the writer having an "oh sh*t, what the f*ck am I going to write" moment days before deadline.

impaler

2010-02-09 05:43:59 PM

ne2d: Another essential element of the Times' template is to include a quote by some associate professor of something at some random college. "It really adds nothing to the substance of the article," said Emily Ayshford, who teaches media studies at Marlboro College in Marlboro, Vermont. "Its sole purpose is to provide the illusion of legitimacy to what is, essentially, an entirely made-up story."

+1

cmunic8r99

2010-02-09 06:54:33 PM

impaler: ne2d: Another essential element of the Times' template is to include a quote by some associate professor of something at some random college. "It really adds nothing to the substance of the article," said Emily Ayshford, who teaches media studies at Marlboro College in Marlboro, Vermont. "Its sole purpose is to provide the illusion of legitimacy to what is, essentially, an entirely made-up story."

+1

+1²

moralpanic

2010-02-09 07:06:15 PM

I'm gonna have to go with Gawker on this one. Stories like that are pure BS.

fusillade762

2010-02-09 07:20:12 PM

United States senators slope around in flip-flops

Slope? Has anyone ever heard that word used that way before?

French Rage

2010-02-09 07:32:09 PM

sigdiamond2000: Wait a minute...so you mean there aren't thousands of wealthy urban professionals who've decided to become "freegans" and live in their apartments with no heat or running water?

I refuse to believe that. I won't accept that.

/This sort of thing isn't unique to the NYT. Whenever you read an article in any publication about a cultural "trend," there's about a 99% chance that that trend is the direct result of the writer having an "oh sh*t, what the f*ck am I going to write" moment days before deadline.

See "nontrees".

Kar98

2010-02-09 07:36:28 PM

cmunic8r99: impaler: ne2d: Another essential element of the Times' template is to include a quote by some associate professor of something at some random college. "It really adds nothing to the substance of the article," said Emily Ayshford, who teaches media studies at Marlboro College in Marlboro, Vermont. "Its sole purpose is to provide the illusion of legitimacy to what is, essentially, an entirely made-up story."

+1

+1²

∜(-1)*(-1)

Pants full of macaroni!!

2010-02-09 08:10:27 PM

This thrilling new trend was proudly brought to you by:

BIG SWIFTY & ASSOCIATES
TRENDMONGERS

/who is making those new brown clouds?

The All-Powerful Atheismo

2010-02-09 08:26:50 PM

rpm

2010-02-09 08:29:19 PM

So they're All Agog over Eggnog?

/better not be obscure

Theseus

2010-02-09 09:00:46 PM

Can the liters get the Lost thread please? I hope it's not too much to ask to have one of these each week just for 12 more weeks or so.

douchebag/hater

2010-02-09 09:14:36 PM

fusillade762 2010-02-09 07:20:12 PM
United States senators slope around in flip-flops

Slope? Has anyone ever heard that word used that way before?

I think the writer meant 'slop'.

While Gawker has a good point his tortured examples leave much to be desired.

Finally, as much as I think the NYTimes sucks I seriously doubt they would have spelled 'graph' as 'graf' as Gawker did.

This is just plain stupidic.

slayer199

2010-02-09 09:17:18 PM

If there was only some website or news aggregator that would expose these media-created trends with snarky headlines, all would be right in the world.

CaptainFatass

2010-02-09 09:54:27 PM

douchebag/hater: fusillade762 2010-02-09 07:20:12 PM

Finally, as much as I think the NYTimes sucks I seriously doubt they would have spelled 'graph' as 'graf' as Gawker did.

This is just plain stupidic.

That's actually common parlance in publishing.

douchebag/hater

2010-02-09 11:43:01 PM

CaptainFatass 2010-02-09 09:54:27 PM
douchebag/hater: fusillade762 2010-02-09 07:20:12 PM

Finally, as much as I think the NYTimes sucks I seriously doubt they would have spelled 'graph' as 'graf' as Gawker did.

This is just plain stupidic.

That's actually common parlance in publishing.

Not being a jerk here but I would like to see three examples from anything bordering the mainstream press/websites that spell graph 'graf' because I read A LOT and this is the first and only time I've seen it spelled like this.

cybernia

2010-02-10 01:01:35 AM

douchebag/hater: CaptainFatass 2010-02-09 09:54:27 PM
douchebag/hater: fusillade762 2010-02-09 07:20:12 PM

Finally, as much as I think the NYTimes sucks I seriously doubt they would have spelled 'graph' as 'graf' as Gawker did.

This is just plain stupidic.

That's actually common parlance in publishing.

Not being a jerk here but I would like to see three examples from anything bordering the mainstream press/websites that spell graph 'graf' because I read A LOT and this is the first and only time I've seen it spelled like this.

They're using industry shorthand. There is also something called a "nut graf" which basically sums up the article. It's like the way they spell "lede" to mean "lead."

dc0012c

2010-02-10 07:15:02 AM