Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Washington Post)   Is it too soon for a bad story about Roger Ebert??   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, Roger Ebert, Siskel  
•       •       •

18789 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Apr 2013 at 12:23 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



158 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-11 08:47:31 PM  
It's never too soon on Fark.com
 
2013-04-11 08:54:34 PM  
It's too soon for a person trying to advance his career with a non-story about Ebert (of blessed memory)
 
2013-04-11 08:57:39 PM  
Not if you're just jawing.
 
2013-04-11 09:02:31 PM  

UNC_Samurai: Not if you're just jawing.


He's just flappin' his gums.
 
2013-04-11 09:16:48 PM  
That article was long-winded yet said absolutely nothing.

Stories like this aren't the reason journalism is dying, but it sure as hell ain't helping it stay alive.
 
2013-04-11 09:31:26 PM  
This is a bad story. I'm not sure it's about Roger Ebert. I'm not sure if it's about anything. It's pointlessly split into two pages and manages to say nothing between them. I'd criticize it further but I'll just end up copying lines from Ebert's review of North.

Not that there's nothing bad to say about Ebert, there's plenty on that front.
 
2013-04-11 09:34:42 PM  
I guess reading the entire article is a lost art.
 
2013-04-11 09:50:17 PM  

Eddy Gurge: I guess reading the entire article is a lost art.


Here's the entire article.

Page 1 -- a heck of a lot of throat-clearing about how it's soooo icky to mock the dead, and the writer feels just awful that he's about to tell a story on Ebert

Page 2 -- author tells his story on Ebert, which is the very definition of a non-story and doesn't make Ebert look bad at all.  The end.
 
2013-04-11 09:54:10 PM  
The guy who wrote that nearly incomprehensible essay won TWO Pulitzers? Kill me.
 
2013-04-11 09:54:30 PM  
So, nobody actually read to the end yet eh?

Yes, this author goes on and on, but, the kicker at the end is, he's been trashing Ebert for 20 years over this pompous letter, and now that Ebert died he went back to look and it.... and realized it was Siskel who wrote it.

Which, duh... Siskel was always the pompous one.
 
2013-04-11 09:55:39 PM  
So, really, it is a bad story about Siskel... and honestly, a worse story about the guy who wrote this article, since he turns out to be the biggest arse in the story, besides his horrible writing style.
 
2013-04-11 10:00:01 PM  
I think the story is that Siskel (or Ebert) wrote a letter complaining about something, and the paper that the writer wrote for published the letter, and then added the response, "Are you the bald one or the fat one?"

Writer's brush with fame, I guess.
 
2013-04-11 10:05:04 PM  

dletter: So, nobody actually read to the end yet eh?

Yes, this author goes on and on, but, the kicker at the end is, he's been trashing Ebert for 20 years over this pompous letter, and now that Ebert died he went back to look and it.... and realized it was Siskel who wrote it.

Which, duh... Siskel was always the pompous one.


Yeah I read it.  It was long winded and awful.  I'm sure somebody could've made a decent article out of it.  This guy didn't.
 
2013-04-11 10:14:41 PM  
Hmmm...

And here I was expecting "Confessions of an Unanticipated Ingredient in a Theater Popcorn Bag"...


/Hot buttered
//And salty
///One thumb down
 
2013-04-11 10:26:33 PM  

Chariset: It's too soon for a person trying to advance his career with a non-story about Ebert (of blessed memory)


The guy won two Pulitzers.  His career is just fine.
 
2013-04-11 10:32:13 PM  
Those of us who read all the way through are dumber for it. Save yourselves before this headline goes green...

/ pulitzers must be handed out to anyone these days...
 
2013-04-11 10:32:36 PM  

Klippoklondike: That article was long-winded yet said absolutely nothing.

Stories like this aren't the reason journalism is dying, but it sure as hell ain't helping it stay alive.


Yeah, it said something.  It said that a two-time Pulitzer winner can direct his ire at the wrong person.for well over 2 decades.

Which is funny, and sad, and tells me never to take at face value anything this douchebag every writes again.
 
2013-04-11 10:49:19 PM  
Two thumbs WAY down
 
2013-04-11 11:05:46 PM  
Poorly written, but at least the guy owned up to being a dick to the wrong guy for two decades. And if he hadn't decided to throw one more diss at Ebert, he would not have realized Ebert didn't deserve it.
 
2013-04-11 11:07:07 PM  

Chariset: Eddy Gurge: I guess reading the entire article is a lost art.

Here's the entire article.

Page 1 -- a heck of a lot of throat-clearing about how it's soooo icky to mock the dead, and the writer feels just awful that he's about to tell a story on Ebert

Page 2 -- author tells his story on Ebert, which is the very definition of a non-story and doesn't make Ebert look bad at all.  The end.


I wish I read your comment before I clicked on the non-story.

You know how occasionally some non-celebrity runs into a celebrity, and gets the brush off, not really enormously rude but a little short with the fan, because maybe the celebrity has just been bothered once too many times on the beach or just wants to have a nice dinner with his or her own family in a restaurant for once? This article was like that kind of story except it was published in a real newspaper as if it were real news, by a guy with 2(! count-em!) Pulitzers.

Instead of a blog post on his shiatty blog. Which is where it should've been.
 
2013-04-11 11:11:39 PM  

Triumph: The guy who wrote that nearly incomprehensible essay won TWO Pulitzers? Kill me.


i45.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-11 11:28:42 PM  

Chariset: Eddy Gurge: I guess reading the entire article is a lost art.

Here's the entire article.

Page 1 -- a heck of a lot of throat-clearing about how it's soooo icky to mock the dead, and the writer feels just awful that he's about to tell a story on Ebert

Page 2 -- author tells his story on Ebert, which is the very definition of a non-story and doesn't make Ebert look bad at all.  The end.


WHO?
some loser who won two pulitzers and felt the need to let us know?
YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
 
2013-04-11 11:33:02 PM  
Your blog sucks.
 
2013-04-11 11:41:03 PM  

dletter: So, nobody actually read to the end yet eh?

Yes, this author goes on and on, but, the kicker at the end is, he's been trashing Ebert for 20 years over this pompous letter, and now that Ebert died he went back to look and it.... and realized it was Siskel who wrote it.


Oh, thanks for pointing that out...that makes it far less lame.

Wait...no...still completely lame.

Your blog sucks.
 
2013-04-12 12:17:36 AM  

namatad: Chariset: Eddy Gurge: I guess reading the entire article is a lost art.

Here's the entire article.

Page 1 -- a heck of a lot of throat-clearing about how it's soooo icky to mock the dead, and the writer feels just awful that he's about to tell a story on Ebert

Page 2 -- author tells his story on Ebert, which is the very definition of a non-story and doesn't make Ebert look bad at all.  The end.

WHO?
some loser who won two pulitzers and felt the need to let us know?
YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN


www.summercampculture.com

Roger Ebert writes, from beyond the grave: "TotalFarkers were enjoined after the article to avoid revealing the article secrets. That is not because we would spoil the article for you. It's because if you knew them, you wouldn't want to click the link."
 
2013-04-12 12:24:37 AM  
Roger Ebert gave me pinkeye.

He was an asshole
 
2013-04-12 12:30:11 AM  
so, like, this guy made a bunch of insults and unsubstantiated claims, and then, like, Ebert was all like a pompous ass and stuff and said how he had a Pulitzer(I have two by the way), and then the first guy is all like "are you fat or bald? LOL!" and I'm all like "OH SNAP!"
 
2013-04-12 12:34:05 AM  
Even if Ebert had written a pompous letter, that won't do nearly as much to his future reputation as his dogged insistence that video games are not art. 50 years from now, can you imagine how silly that view will look?

/Also, his positive review for Cop and a Half.
 
2013-04-12 12:34:34 AM  

namatad: Chariset: Eddy Gurge: I guess reading the entire article is a lost art.

Here's the entire article.

Page 1 -- a heck of a lot of throat-clearing about how it's soooo icky to mock the dead, and the writer feels just awful that he's about to tell a story on Ebert

Page 2 -- author tells his story on Ebert, which is the very definition of a non-story and doesn't make Ebert look bad at all.  The end.

WHO?
some loser who won two pulitzers and felt the need to let us know?
YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN


He mentioned his two Pulitzers as an illustration about how you should not mention your Pulitzers.
 
2013-04-12 12:34:50 AM  
It's almost as if this was scripted to be read by a minor Family Guy character
 
2013-04-12 12:35:48 AM  
The Post cropped a fantastic photo, WTF is wrong with people?

Here is the whole thing:


msnbcmedia.msn.com

/ I heart this photo THIS much!
 
2013-04-12 12:36:15 AM  
A pompous film reviewer? My lawd, where's my fainting couch? Never heard tell of such a thing!

*swoon*
 
2013-04-12 12:36:52 AM  

Chariset: It's too soon for a person trying to advance his career with a non-story about Ebert (of blessed memory)


Yeah, definitely too soon to shiat on somebody that made a career of shiatting on people for a farking millennium or however how old he was.  Whatever, who could possibly give a shiat.
 
2013-04-12 12:38:53 AM  

VelcroFez: I think the story is that Siskel (or Ebert) wrote a letter complaining about something, and the paper that the writer wrote for published the letter, and then added the response, "Are you the bald one or the fat one?"

Writer's brush with fame, I guess.


It take s a few readings to discover once he got the letter from the archives he discovered that Siskel wrote the letter but all these years they were saying that Ebert wrote it.

Soo...."Is it too soon to bash the wrong innocent dead guy with a false accusation?"
 
2013-04-12 12:42:25 AM  

Triumph: The guy who wrote that nearly incomprehensible essay won TWO Pulitzers? Kill me.


Bwah?

If I were a professor in a Journalism 101 class and a student handed me that for their first paper I'd give them a passing grade, but it'd be damn close. Pretty sure I'd get some use out of a red pen and the phrase "USE CLEARER LANGUAGE".
 
2013-04-12 12:42:26 AM  
Jaw dropping
 
2013-04-12 12:43:01 AM  
How does Paul Anka hitting Annette Funicello make Roger Ebert bad? Did he write a bad review of it?

Article lost me there
 
2013-04-12 12:43:58 AM  
No, but it should be a really good bad story, and not this confusing piece of boring tripe.
 
2013-04-12 12:44:51 AM  
Ebert was as endearingly, imperfectly as near as anyone could get to being perfect. I read him every day, and I miss him so much.
 
2013-04-12 12:46:36 AM  
Wait a minute, let me get this straight:

You get a letter from a film critic, get pissed off because it basically accuses you of being a hack, and YOU NEVER ACTUALLY BOTHERED TO FIND OUT WHO WROTE IT?

That's some fine journalism there, Lou. No wonder the Tropic is so widely regarded as a bastion of truth and credibility the world over.
 
2013-04-12 12:46:44 AM  

Virtuoso80: Even if Ebert had written a pompous letter, that won't do nearly as much to his future reputation as his dogged insistence that video games are not art. 50 years from now, can you imagine how silly that view will look?

/Also, his positive review for Cop and a Half.


Didn't he eventually caved and agreed that video games can be in fact an art form, because people disagreed with him?
 
2013-04-12 12:47:02 AM  

Klippoklondike: That article was long-winded yet said absolutely nothing.

Stories like this aren't the reason journalism is dying, but it sure as hell ain't helping it stay alive.


Good cause I stopped reading a 100 words in when it became clear the author had nothing to say and was just laying down words.
 
2013-04-12 12:47:13 AM  
www.grandhaventribune.com
Subby and article writer, you suck. When relating a story, always have a point.
 
2013-04-12 12:47:38 AM  
That was a funny piece - the backstory is a bit lengthy but sets the stage nicely.
 
2013-04-12 12:49:12 AM  
They sold out.  Should have stayed with PBS.
 
2013-04-12 12:52:35 AM  
2-bit story about some guy complaining "wahhhhhhh, some good critics are making money off their work" and Ebert slapping him down good.
 
2013-04-12 12:53:28 AM  
This was a dumb article which told us what we already knew, that Siskel was kind of a pompous asshole.(although Ebert could be one too).

Outtakes: (NSFW language all 3)
http://youtu.be/OkwVz_jK3gA
http://youtu.be/xUMZjy8rXE4

this is especially funny: Siskel (Jewish) and Ebert (Catholic) rant about Protestants/WASPs
http://youtu.be/ALFpRJKnK2U

Siskel seems kinda drunky ...
 
2013-04-12 12:55:53 AM  
siskel and ebert were no sneakin' in the movies.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/415635ccbe/hollywood-shuffle-sneaki n- in-the-movies (NSFW)

/the levels of gravitivy and polarity
 
2013-04-12 12:57:20 AM  
In the 1980s, I edited Tropic, the Miami Herald's Sunday magazine. It was a swaggering, unapologetically subversive magazine, staffed by an eccentric group of people, including me...

"I was once edgy! And here I go again, making jokes about a dead celebrity! Or am I???" *places pinky to corner of mouth*

/Annoyed I actually clicked on that and read it.
 
2013-04-12 12:57:22 AM  
After reading that article I feel like I fell for the most long-winded troll ever.
 
2013-04-12 01:00:25 AM  
I think by "bad story" subby meant that the story in the article was bad.
 
2013-04-12 01:00:38 AM  

Egalitarian: Outtakes: (NSFW language all 3)
http://youtu.be/OkwVz_jK3gA
http://youtu.be/xUMZjy8rXE4


Oh my god, those were farking awesome, and just made me love Ebert more.
 
2013-04-12 01:01:09 AM  

Fart_Machine: After reading that article I feel like I fell for the most long-winded troll ever.


Pretty much.
In the end it's about nothing more than some very slightly amusing story of Siskel and Ebert from 1989 that hasn't been amusing since 1989.
 
2013-04-12 01:01:57 AM  

fusillade762: namatad: Chariset: Eddy Gurge: I guess reading the entire article is a lost art.

Here's the entire article.

Page 1 -- a heck of a lot of throat-clearing about how it's soooo icky to mock the dead, and the writer feels just awful that he's about to tell a story on Ebert

Page 2 -- author tells his story on Ebert, which is the very definition of a non-story and doesn't make Ebert look bad at all.  The end.

WHO?
some loser who won two pulitzers and felt the need to let us know?
YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

He mentioned his two Pulitzers as an illustration about how you should not mention your Pulitzers.


So, he found a way to brag without coming across as a braggart?
 
2013-04-12 01:05:54 AM  
Ebert did a lot of fark'd up stuff early in his life and this is all somebody can come up with that's "bad"?

/love Ebert
 
2013-04-12 01:07:41 AM  
Was there an "article" hidden somewhere in this "article?"
 
2013-04-12 01:08:01 AM  

gingerjet: Ebert did a lot of fark'd up stuff early in his life and this is all somebody can come up with that's "bad"?

/love Ebert


http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/04/roger-ebert-me mo ries-bad-review-zweibel.html Here's an article written by a guy he had kneecapped, then gangraped and left for dead.
 
2013-04-12 01:08:26 AM  

Virtuoso80: /Also, his positive review for Cop and a Half.


The SunTimes rolled out his new web page after his death - if you search on Google for his reviews you're taken to it.  They had been working it for years, but it went live after he died.

That's a little sad, because they rushed it.
 
2013-04-12 01:14:44 AM  
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com

LOOK AT ME, LA LA LA
 
2013-04-12 01:15:17 AM  
That was a huge waste of time.  What.  The.  Hell.
 
2013-04-12 01:15:47 AM  
The butthurt is strong in this thread.

/the story is certainly real; it was related in Cosford's obit in 1994. Although I'm not paying $2.95 to read the whole thing to see if the Ebert vs. Siskel confusion dates back that far.
 
2013-04-12 01:17:15 AM  
i stopped caring what this guys were saying after 1987, when ebert was so harsh on full metal jacket.
 
2013-04-12 01:20:51 AM  
BTW, I'd like to note that Gene Weingarten is not the 2-bit person in this.  Gene Weingarten has two, really REALLY well-deserved Pulitzers for feature writing.  For instance, for  Fatal Distraction: Forgetting a Child in the Backseat of a Car Is a Horrifying Mistake. Is It a Crime?  (WARNING: this story will make you cry.  I don't care if you have no soul. You will still cry.)
 
2013-04-12 01:21:27 AM  

What_Would_Jimi_Do: i stopped caring what this guys were saying after 1987, when ebert was so harsh on full metal jacket.


The movie's half a great basic training movie, half a mess of a Vietnam movie.  Get over it.
 
2013-04-12 01:22:36 AM  

JosephFinn: What_Would_Jimi_Do: i stopped caring what this guys were saying after 1987, when ebert was so harsh on full metal jacket.

The movie's half a great basic training movie, half a mess of a Vietnam movie.  Get over it.


it is better than this farktard gave it credit. so go EABOD
 
2013-04-12 01:24:01 AM  
"Hi, I'm a two-time Pulitzer winner who thinks its unethical to profit by talking trash about a recently deceased celebrity.  So instead, I'm going to use the dead celebs fame in order to profit by telling a story about his other dead celeb friend."

Stay classy there, Mr. Upstanding Writer.
 
2013-04-12 01:25:21 AM  

JosephFinn: BTW, I'd like to note that Gene Weingarten is not the 2-bit person in this.  Gene Weingarten has two, really REALLY well-deserved Pulitzers for feature writing.  For instance, for  Fatal Distraction: Forgetting a Child in the Backseat of a Car Is a Horrifying Mistake. Is It a Crime?  (WARNING: this story will make you cry.  I don't care if you have no soul. You will still cry.)


Yes, and Herbert Hoover moved from unparalleled success to unparalleled success before becoming president.
 
2013-04-12 01:26:17 AM  
I know someone has to barely pass university but that was the worst written piece I've ever seen. Who did he blow to get those Pulitzers?
 
2013-04-12 01:28:00 AM  

What_Would_Jimi_Do: i stopped caring what this guys were saying after 1987, when ebert was so harsh on full metal jacket.


Did you start hating Full Metal Jacket because Eyes Wide Shut sucked?

Ebert was a talented and popular guy whose work had high and low points like every other talented and popular guy.
 
2013-04-12 01:28:14 AM  
I have an Ebert story: Once, while on a business trip in Chicago, I stopped for a quick dinner at Lawry's. Sitting next to me was a very drunk Roger Ebert, just staring down at a hunk of prime rib. I asked him if he wanted to join me and after he did, one thing lead to another and we started drinking like Amy Winehouse at a Hole concert - or vice versa...anyway, with both of us swimming in booze, he mentioned that he was a member of the Aryan Nation and hated everyone except, well, Aryans. I was shocked and I was furious. I screamed at him to leave. He lunged for his steak knife and I wrestled it from him with a kimura lock. I then threw the seasoning salt at his face and that's actually what doctor believe caused his face cancer.

As god as my witness everything in the above story is as I remember it... except, after I went back and checked, it wasn't Chicago, it was Baton Rouge, and it was wasn't Lawry's, it was Ruth's Chris and it wasn't the Aryan Nation, it was Mensa, and it wasn't seasoning salt, it was my fist and it wasn't cancer it was a broken jaw, and it wasn't Roger Ebert, it was my brother, and he didn't have face cancer, but does have a touch of psoriasis on his left elbow.


My bad.
 
2013-04-12 01:28:43 AM  
It's not an article, it's an essay. It's not supposed to be relating news. Or did all of you miss the "OPINIONS" in big letters across the top of it? :P

I liked and thought it was a cute story.
 
2013-04-12 01:30:53 AM  

Fano: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/04/roger-ebert-me mo ries-bad-review-zweibel.html Here's an article written by a guy he had kneecapped, then gangraped and left for dead.


"My son, Adam, was nine years old. He was at that age when he'd be looking across the dinner table at my wife, Robin, and me, and from the expression on his face you could tell he was thinking, "I can do better than these two.""

Guy seems like he might have some issues which distort his perception of others. Reading the entire thing tripped several sociopath alarms. In fact near the end i began imagining him as Patrick Bateman from American Psycho.
 
2013-04-12 01:34:48 AM  
Ebert didn't like Die Hard. You can praise him all you want. But he didn't like Die Hard. Do I need to say this again: the greatest film critic of all time....didn't like Die Hard.

Everyone should feel free to take stabs at him...even if it makes them look like an ass.

Slutter McGee
 
2013-04-12 01:38:42 AM  
70 posts in and I'm going to be the first person to say i actually kind of thought it was a cute story?  As for it's journalistic merits, it's soft news.  It's got a teaser intro, and it got a bunch of people to read ANOTHER story about a guy who died a week ago (or at least got some people to click on it, it seems no one actually read it until about halfway down the thread here).  It's got a news peg (that's a fancy thing you learn about in journalism.  It's got a twist ending (better than anything by M. Knight since at least Unbreakable), it actually doesn't break the rule about not saying anything bad about a dead person (which about half of the people in the thread misread as 'not talking about dead people').  It's two pages long.  Oh the humanity.  If it wasn't your style, fine, but at least, for Ebert's sake, if you are going to review something, read the whole article and actually try to make your critique understandable.

And, for the second time in a couple days, I'm going to ask farkers who seem to think an article is confusing just because it doesn't lay the facts out in a straight order to go see their doctors to see if a brain tumor is interfering with their reading comprehension.  That's about a fifth grade reading level there folks.  If you can't handle that on Fark maybe YouTube is more your speed.

Somewhere, up in heaven, Ebert is chuckling.

No he's not.  He was an atheist.

He's in Hell.

No he's not.  That's just made up too.
 
2013-04-12 01:45:12 AM  
i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-04-12 01:52:15 AM  
Page 1: A long-winded apology for speaking ill of the dead that leads me to expect some sort of Jimmy Savile-esque revelation on the second page.

Page 2: The author admits to wrongly criticising Ebert for a pompous letter that was actually written by Siskel. And can't even be arsed to run the letter, or a link to it, or even an excerpt.

Granted, I have seen worse links greenlit, but this is still pretty poor. Not quite FarkTV bad, but definitely AskMen bad.
 
2013-04-12 01:53:28 AM  

Slutter McGee: Ebert didn't like Die Hard. You can praise him all you want. But he didn't like Die Hard. Do I need to say this again: the greatest film critic of all time....didn't like Die Hard.

Everyone should feel free to take stabs at him...even if it makes them look like an ass.

Slutter McGee


Strange. I quite enjoy Die Hard.
 
2013-04-12 01:53:31 AM  
That article was the saddest waste of 5 minutes of my life... I'll be sure to skip any other articles/books by this guy, even if they did win "prizes".
 
2013-04-12 01:56:11 AM  
This isn't an expose about human rights abuses. It's a mildly amusing anecdote about a widely admired man. It succeeds as a mildly amusing anecdote - even if it is a little self serving.

It amazes me how many people go crazy when someone doesn't like what they like, or vice-versa. I love reading reviews, and have written many of my own over the years. Don't approach it as "Well X says this is good, so I will see it." Approach it as "Well, this person - whose opinion I generally agree with - says this is good, so I'll give it a shot. Plus I like the way they write." Spoiler alert - you'll still disagree on certain films/games/albums.

Unless that person is Armond White. That guy's just an obnoxious professional troll with thesaurus.com bookmarked on his MacBook Pro who needs to be punched hard in the nuts. Seriously, White deserves 10 times the painful cancer Ebert had, and will be missed by 100-percent fewer people.

/but that's just my opinion
 
2013-04-12 02:04:47 AM  

JosephFinn: BTW, I'd like to note that Gene Weingarten is not the 2-bit person in this.  Gene Weingarten has two, really REALLY well-deserved Pulitzers for feature writing.  For instance, for  Fatal Distraction: Forgetting a Child in the Backseat of a Car Is a Horrifying Mistake. Is It a Crime?  (WARNING: this story will make you cry.  I don't care if you have no soul. You will still cry.)


Oh my Lord.

Okay... granted, it's heartwrenching material, but that was a worthy article.

Unfortunately, that makes this particular load of tripe seem all the worse.
 
2013-04-12 02:06:42 AM  

Strongbeerrules: They sold out.  Should have stayed with PBS.


Yeah man!  Remember when it all just used to be about the tote bags and umbrellas, man?
 
2013-04-12 02:11:10 AM  
Gawdarnit...SISKEL wrote it. Read the farkin article.  I haven't read the last 40 comments and god will forgive my ignorance but SISKEL, siskel, gdam siskel wrote it. Not the skinny bald one, Ebert.
 
2013-04-12 02:14:56 AM  
I dunno, I thought it was kind of funny.
 
2013-04-12 02:15:34 AM  
Two people who didn't come off looking bad from that story are Siskel and Ebert.
 
2013-04-12 02:16:11 AM  
To me, Ebert will be the guy who was smart enough to give a "thumbs up" to Casino.

/Siskel didn't make the right choice regarding said movie.
 
2013-04-12 02:23:25 AM  
That was an interesting letter.
It appears most fark commenters aren't getting the 'thing'. It's an excellently written article, with an 'M. Night Shymalan' type surprise ending.
 
2013-04-12 02:26:59 AM  

TheOmni: This is a bad story. I'm not sure it's about Roger Ebert. I'm not sure if it's about anything. It's pointlessly split into two pages and manages to say nothing between them. I'd criticize it further but I'll just end up copying lines from Ebert's review of North.

Not that there's nothing bad to say about Ebert, there's plenty on that front.


I cut my losses after the first page. It was pretty clear that the article was just filler, with no actual content.
 
2013-04-12 02:28:47 AM  
In L.A. in the 80s, when I was sixteen, my buddy, also sixteen, got a job working the night shift at an all night newstand/adult bookstore (wall down the middle of the store). So of course that summer I hung out there a few nights a week between 1 and 3am.  Anyway, Roger Ebert rolls up in a red Porsche, gets out wearing a tux, smoking a stogie, with a tall super hot blond on his arm and starts perusing the aisles (not the dirty ones).  He bought about 3 or 4 newspapers and in general just seemed to enjoy the attention.  That's all.  Everyone of us regulars said jokey stuff to him, he joked back, the end.

I got a lot of non-stories like that from those days.

/that same year I played bartender at a house party for pee wee herman...
 
2013-04-12 02:29:17 AM  
Gene wrote it.
Awww,  who farkin cares. Anybody?
 
2013-04-12 02:30:24 AM  

Slutter McGee: Ebert didn't like Die Hard. You can praise him all you want. But he didn't like Die Hard. Do I need to say this again: the greatest film critic of all time....didn't like Die Hard.

Everyone should feel free to take stabs at him...even if it makes them look like an ass.

Slutter McGee


not exactly a damning review...

Without the deputy chief and all that he represents, "Die Hard" would have been a more than passable thriller. With him, it's a mess, and that's a shame, because the film does contain superior special effects, impressive stunt work and good performances, especially by Rickman as the terrorist. Here's a suggestion for thrillermakers: You can't go wrong if all of the characters in your movie are at least as intelligent as most of the characters in your audience.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/die-hard-1988
 
2013-04-12 02:30:51 AM  
I'll give the article a 1 star and Ebert's death one and a half black stars.
 
2013-04-12 02:35:19 AM  
There are some who are willing to admit admiration for Gene and Roger (most of us). They (and me) are the ones who sit in admiration of the few who make good moovies. Gene and Roger liked and helpled us find good ones. Nuff said.
 
2013-04-12 02:35:25 AM  

jaytkay: The Post cropped a fantastic photo, WTF is wrong with people?

Here is the whole thing:


[msnbcmedia.msn.com image 594x600]

/ I heart this photo THIS much!


TOGETHER IN HEAVEN, FOREVER.
 
2013-04-12 02:39:56 AM  
Once, late in his career, I saw Barry Bonds take such a monstrous swing at a ball that he stumbled backwards out of the batter's box and nearly fell on his ass. It was like a parody of a home run swing. If he'd actually made solid contact with the ball he probably would have hit it 500 feet, but instead he was up there weaving around like a drunken, 275-pound Little Leaguer.

I felt sorry for him, kind of like I feel sorry for this author. You can see the flop sweat all over this. It's one thing to aim at "funny yet touching" and miss; it's another thing to take point-blank aim at it with everything in your arsenal and yet repeatedly shoot yourself in the foot.
 
2013-04-12 02:43:37 AM  
http://www.fark.com/comments/7695356/83568191#c83568191" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">jaytkay: The Post cropped a fantastic photo, WTF is wrong with people?

Here is the whole thing:


[msnbcmedia.msn.com image 594x600]

/ I heart this photo THIS much!


TOGETHER IN HEAVEN, FOREVER. yeah, I heart it, too, jaytkay....that is my memory
 
2013-04-12 02:50:03 AM  
Would someone explain to me what I just read? I read it twice to try and figure out what the author's point was and how it related to Roger Ebert and I still have no farking clue. I hope to God that I never have to read anything by that moron again.
 
2013-04-12 02:58:38 AM  
Most people commenting here are ignorant. Gene Weingarten is a great writer, and the fact that you've never heard of him demonstrates your ignorance. It was not a newspaper article, nor a blog post. It was an update to his monthly Washington Post chat. You are idiots.
 
2013-04-12 03:01:29 AM  
"blwaaaaahwawerrrrraaggh dfrrragggth. Thhhhssssrrrrup."
 
2013-04-12 03:02:00 AM  
Is it some meta meme I'm not getting all this criticism of the article? It was very funny.

Thank you subby, good read.
 
2013-04-12 03:02:45 AM  

Smoked: Most people commenting here are ignorant. Gene Weingarten is a great writer, and the fact that you've never heard of him demonstrates your ignorance. It was not a newspaper article, nor a blog post. It was an update to his monthly Washington Post chat. You are idiots.


nothing in your comment makes his "chat" humorous, entertaining or insightful.
 
2013-04-12 03:03:15 AM  

Smoked: Most people commenting here are ignorant. Gene Weingarten is a great writer, and the fact that you've never heard of him demonstrates your ignorance. It was not a newspaper article, nor a blog post. It was an update to his monthly Washington Post chat. You are idiots.


What the hell is that and how does it change that rambling nothingness he went on about for 2 pages?
 
2013-04-12 03:03:26 AM  

Smoked: Most people commenting here are ignorant. Gene Weingarten is a great writer, and the fact that you've never heard of him demonstrates your ignorance. It was not a newspaper article, nor a blog post. It was an update to his monthly Washington Post chat. You are idiots.


Ok. I don't think they are idiots but I'm glad I'm not alone in being confused by the insta-slam. I guess it is Fark.

welcometofark.bmp.jpg

/ya ya
 
2013-04-12 03:07:40 AM  
I can't tell people what to like, but that was an awesome article.

/that is all
//RIP Roger
 
2013-04-12 03:12:42 AM  

JosephFinn: BTW, I'd like to note that Gene Weingarten is not the 2-bit person in this.  Gene Weingarten has two, really REALLY well-deserved Pulitzers for feature writing.  For instance, for  Fatal Distraction: Forgetting a Child in the Backseat of a Car Is a Horrifying Mistake. Is It a Crime?


YES! Criminal Negligence. Sorry that you lost your kid, but that doesn't make you *less* of a criminal. It just proves how much you need to go to jail.

We had a case in Wisconsin recently where some parents let their kid go run around in the yard with a pit bull. The dog killed the kid, and the dog was euthanized. The parents? They are totally fine. No legal problems whatsoever from letting their dog kill their child. In fact, if they want to have another baby or two, and go find a half a dozen pit bulls and bring them home, there is nothing legally wrong with them doing so.
 
2013-04-12 03:16:33 AM  
TL;DR

Thanks for the summary, boys.
 
2013-04-12 03:16:34 AM  
From the author's wikipedia page:
In 2008, he was awarded the for his  Washington Post story "Pearls Before Breakfast", "his chronicling of a world-class violinist () who, as an experiment, played beautiful music in a subway station filled with unheeding commuters."  In 2010, he won a second Pulitzer for "Fatal Distraction," "his haunting story about parents, from varying walks of life, who accidentally kill their children by forgetting them in cars."

Yea Pulitzers!
 
2013-04-12 03:24:37 AM  
DO YOU NOT BELIEVE IN THE VIRGIN MARY, NUMBNUTS? I WILL PT YOU UNTIL YOU DIE!

blog.moviepostershop.com
 
2013-04-12 03:25:50 AM  

log_jammin: Smoked: Most people commenting here are ignorant. Gene Weingarten is a great writer, and the fact that you've never heard of him demonstrates your ignorance. It was not a newspaper article, nor a blog post. It was an update to his monthly Washington Post chat. You are idiots.

nothing in your comment makes his "chat" humorous, entertaining or insightful.


That's like, your opinion, man.
 
2013-04-12 03:30:00 AM  

Cheater71: Smoked: Most people commenting here are ignorant. Gene Weingarten is a great writer, and the fact that you've never heard of him demonstrates your ignorance. It was not a newspaper article, nor a blog post. It was an update to his monthly Washington Post chat. You are idiots.

What the hell is that and how does it change that rambling nothingness he went on about for 2 pages?


What was that, about 1000 words? If you didn't get the point, then you are an idiot. Sorry.
 
2013-04-12 03:32:01 AM  
That writer has been carrying a big grudge around for a long time. What a big man he must be to trash people when they're dead.
 
2013-04-12 03:34:22 AM  

Acharne: Smoked: Most people commenting here are ignorant. Gene Weingarten is a great writer, and the fact that you've never heard of him demonstrates your ignorance. It was not a newspaper article, nor a blog post. It was an update to his monthly Washington Post chat. You are idiots.

Ok. I don't think they are idiots but I'm glad I'm not alone in being confused by the insta-slam. I guess it is Fark.

welcometofark.bmp.jpg

/ya ya


They are idiots. The whole point of it was that Weingarten was the idiot. If you don't like a shaggy dog story, well, fine, but if reading 1000 words or so (maybe 2000) is such an problem maybe you are an idiot who can barely read, let alone comprehend.
 
2013-04-12 03:34:56 AM  

Smoked: log_jammin: Smoked: Most people commenting here are ignorant. Gene Weingarten is a great writer, and the fact that you've never heard of him demonstrates your ignorance. It was not a newspaper article, nor a blog post. It was an update to his monthly Washington Post chat. You are idiots.

nothing in your comment makes his "chat" humorous, entertaining or insightful.

That's like, your opinion, man.


no it's not.

I didn't say "his chat was not humorous, entertaining or insightful". I just pointed out that your factoids and opinions of the writer and fark posters have no bearing at all on the worth of the article.
 
2013-04-12 03:39:12 AM  

log_jammin: Smoked: log_jammin: Smoked: Most people commenting here are ignorant. Gene Weingarten is a great writer, and the fact that you've never heard of him demonstrates your ignorance. It was not a newspaper article, nor a blog post. It was an update to his monthly Washington Post chat. You are idiots.

nothing in your comment makes his "chat" humorous, entertaining or insightful.

That's like, your opinion, man.

no it's not.

I didn't say "his chat was not humorous, entertaining or insightful". I just pointed out that your factoids and opinions of the writer and fark posters have no bearing at all on the worth of the article.


The article was worth the electrons that were inconvenienced in order to publish it. IMHO. Idiot.
 
2013-04-12 03:43:29 AM  

Smoked: Idiot.


said the guy who can't figure out what is and isn't an opinion, after berating everyone else for their lack of comprehension.
 
2013-04-12 03:47:48 AM  

gameshowhost: Triumph: The guy who wrote that nearly incomprehensible essay won TWO Pulitzers? Kill me.

[i45.tinypic.com image 500x282]


Why I'd Pulitz her, by god.
 
2013-04-12 03:48:55 AM  
Every post is an opinion. Most of them are wrong.
 
2013-04-12 03:52:19 AM  

doglover: [www.washingtonpost.com image 114x80]
[www.washingtonpost.com image 114x80]
[www.washingtonpost.com image 114x80]
[www.washingtonpost.com image 114x80]

LOOK AT ME, LA LA LA




Jesus Christ he looks like Gene Shalit and Magnum PI's secret love child. In a Trump rug.
 
2013-04-12 03:53:43 AM  

log_jammin: Smoked: Idiot.

said the guy who can't figure out what is and isn't an opinion, after berating everyone else for their lack of comprehension.


Actually most statements of "fact" in this thread are demonstrably incorrect. Except when I call you and your ilk idiots.
 
2013-04-12 03:54:24 AM  
Speaking of the "I've won a Pulitzer" thing, I'm just gonna leave Ebert's review of 'Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo' here for those of you who aren't familiar with it. Read it through to the end. Oh so worth it.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/deuce-bigalow-european-gigolo-2005

/Ebert WAS a bit of a pompous jerk sometimes but he was one hell of a writer and he knew his movies. I miss him.
 
2013-04-12 04:01:23 AM  

HoratioGates: 70 posts in and I'm going to be the first person to say i actually kind of thought it was a cute story?


Make me the second person. I thought it was cute, entertaining, and well-written. I'm confused by all the hate for it in here.
 
2013-04-12 04:03:07 AM  

Smoked: Actually most statements of "fact" in this thread are demonstrably incorrect. Except when I call you and your ilk idiots.


go to bed son. you have school in the morning.
 
2013-04-12 04:11:23 AM  

log_jammin: Smoked: Actually most statements of "fact" in this thread are demonstrably incorrect. Except when I call you and your ilk idiots.

go to bed son. you have school in the morning.


You wouldn't know what to do with an education if you actually got one.
 
2013-04-12 04:12:05 AM  
*yawn*
 
2013-04-12 04:19:32 AM  

Smoked: log_jammin: Smoked: Actually most statements of "fact" in this thread are demonstrably incorrect. Except when I call you and your ilk idiots.

go to bed son. you have school in the morning.

You wouldn't know what to do with an education if you actually got one.


For Christ's sake Gene, go to bed. There will be fresh corpses to sort of ineffectually rape in the morning.
 
2013-04-12 04:21:24 AM  
I just don't get the obsession with this guy - he was a FILM CRITIC.  He wasn't curing cancer (as is pretty evident - OK, I'll admit that was low).  But seriously, he reviewed movies.  A topic which is entirely subjective to an individual.  It is really not important.

A quick look at one obituaries page gives me plenty of people who have given a heck of a lot to the world and don't get celebrated on this site - for example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/medicine-obituaries/99849 88 /Professor-Sir-Robert-Edwards.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/9988179/John-Scott.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/9988198/Ian-Ross.html
 
2013-04-12 04:36:12 AM  

drake113: Wait a minute, let me get this straight:

You get a letter from a film critic, get pissed off because it basically accuses you of being a hack, and YOU NEVER ACTUALLY BOTHERED TO FIND OUT WHO WROTE IT?

That's some fine journalism there, Lou. No wonder the Tropic is so widely regarded as a bastion of truth and credibility the world over.


That's some fine reading comprehension there, Lou. The author  remembered it wrong. Has that never happened to you? Plus author of TFA wasn't the one accused of being a hack. Author was the editor of the Tropic. Siskel's letter was aimed at the Tropic's film critic. Congrats, you now sound like more of an ass than Siskel or the author.
 
2013-04-12 04:39:58 AM  

Brigandaca: I just don't get the obsession with this guy


inigomontoya.jpg
 
2013-04-12 04:45:56 AM  

Smoked: Actually most statements of "fact" in this thread are demonstrably incorrect. Except when I call you and your ilk idiots.


Translation: "My vagina! My beautiful vagina! So much SAND!"
 
2013-04-12 05:05:14 AM  

Hetfield: Smoked: Actually most statements of "fact" in this thread are demonstrably incorrect. Except when I call you and your ilk idiots.

Translation: "My vagina! My beautiful vagina! So much SAND!"


Thanks for the confirmation.
 
2013-04-12 05:28:24 AM  

JosephFinn: BTW, I'd like to note that Gene Weingarten is not the 2-bit person in this.  Gene Weingarten has two, really REALLY well-deserved Pulitzers for feature writing.  For instance, for  Fatal Distraction: Forgetting a Child in the Backseat of a Car Is a Horrifying Mistake. Is It a Crime?  (WARNING: this story will make you cry.  I don't care if you have no soul. You will still cry.)


Meh.

It's not like they left a dog to overheat and die in the car.
 
2013-04-12 05:58:48 AM  
For all the long-winded set-up, at least the author apologized for trashing Ebert all these years.  I'm just reminded to verify my sources before passing on info.  Well, at least IRL.  This, being Fark, means I'm expected to slander, gossip, and troll without bothering to know details.
 
2013-04-12 06:03:56 AM  

Eddy Gurge: I guess reading the entire article is a lost art.


Apparently, so is knowing what site you're on.
 
2013-04-12 06:35:23 AM  
I remember watching Siskel and Ebert as a kid and realizing that if Siskel and Ebert both really liked a movie, it was only ever something Mom would want to see. That's when I stopped listening to movie critics.
 
2013-04-12 06:40:07 AM  
Despite spending a whole career in journalism, this guy can't write for shiat.
 
2013-04-12 06:40:54 AM  

Pharmdawg: I remember watching Siskel and Ebert as a kid and realizing that if Siskel and Ebert both really liked a movie, it was only ever something Mom would want to see. That's when I stopped listening to movie critics.


Maybe if you had kept listening, you would have realized the thumb thing was just a gimmick, and the real review would have given you an idea whether you would like it -- regardless of the critic's personal verdict.
 
2013-04-12 07:26:43 AM  

eraser8: fusillade762: namatad: Chariset: Eddy Gurge: I guess reading the entire article is a lost art.

Here's the entire article.

Page 1 -- a heck of a lot of throat-clearing about how it's soooo icky to mock the dead, and the writer feels just awful that he's about to tell a story on Ebert

Page 2 -- author tells his story on Ebert, which is the very definition of a non-story and doesn't make Ebert look bad at all.  The end.

WHO?
some loser who won two pulitzers and felt the need to let us know?
YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

He mentioned his two Pulitzers as an illustration about how you should not mention your Pulitzers.

So, he found a way to brag without coming across as a braggart?


http://twitter.com/Humblebrag
 
2013-04-12 07:53:51 AM  
That article was unbearably pompous.
 
2013-04-12 08:09:37 AM  
Hey Gene Weingarten, fark off with this pointless garbage. Just ponderous.
 
2013-04-12 08:18:15 AM  
His screenwriting sucked, he spoiled the ends of movies, he gave good reviews to bad movies if they had a sexy girl in them, and he made factual errors about the films he reviewed. He was an entertaining read, otherwise.
 
2013-04-12 08:19:10 AM  
So, am I to understand that Siskel wrote that letter to make Ebert look like an egotistical buffoon and trick them into thinking Ebert wrote it himself?  because if so, that actually is pretty funny.
 
2013-04-12 08:23:14 AM  

Klippoklondike: That article was long-winded yet said absolutely nothing.

Stories like this aren't the reason journalism is dying, but it sure as hell ain't helping it stay alive.


↑ This  ↑
 
2013-04-12 08:43:54 AM  
jaytkay:
msnbcmedia.msn.com

/ I heart this photo THIS much!



farm5.staticflickr.com
 
2013-04-12 08:52:03 AM  

Metal: That article was unbearably pompous.


Well, it was written by a two timing Pulitzer Prize winner.
 
2013-04-12 08:52:15 AM  
So let me get this straight either Ebert died and this guy went rifling through all his old stories trying to find an Ebert story and this is the best he could come up with or this guy has really spent the last 20 years of his career trashing Ebert over a letter that he didn't even bother to read closely enough to determine who wrote it?
 
2013-04-12 09:07:29 AM  

Skyrmion: HoratioGates: 70 posts in and I'm going to be the first person to say i actually kind of thought it was a cute story?

Make me the second person. I thought it was cute, entertaining, and well-written. I'm confused by all the hate for it in here.


most of us outgrew the complex narrative of 'there's a monster at the end of this book'.
 
2013-04-12 09:10:28 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: His screenwriting sucked, he spoiled the ends of movies, he gave good reviews to bad movies if they had a sexy girl in them, and he made factual errors about the films he reviewed. He was an entertaining read, otherwise.


No wonder we farkers like him. He IS us.
 
2013-04-12 09:26:18 AM  
 
2013-04-12 09:31:20 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: His screenwriting sucked, he spoiled the ends of movies, he gave good reviews to bad movies if they had a sexy girl in them, and he made factual errors about the films he reviewed. He was an entertaining read, otherwise.


You made me remember that when Ebert reviewed "The Right Stuff"  he said it was history that Chuck Yeager taking the Starfighter up was unauthorized.  Ya think Yeager would have made Brig. General is it was?
 
2013-04-12 09:47:15 AM  

HoratioGates: 70 posts in and I'm going to be the first person to say i actually kind of thought it was a cute story?  As for it's journalistic merits, it's soft news.  It's got a teaser intro, and it got a bunch of people to read ANOTHER story about a guy who died a week ago (or at least got some people to click on it, it seems no one actually read it until about halfway down the thread here).  It's got a news peg (that's a fancy thing you learn about in journalism.  It's got a twist ending (better than anything by M. Knight since at least Unbreakable), it actually doesn't break the rule about not saying anything bad about a dead person (which about half of the people in the thread misread as 'not talking about dead people').  It's two pages long.  Oh the humanity.  If it wasn't your style, fine, but at least, for Ebert's sake, if you are going to review something, read the whole article and actually try to make your critique understandable.

And, for the second time in a couple days, I'm going to ask farkers who seem to think an article is confusing just because it doesn't lay the facts out in a straight order to go see their doctors to see if a brain tumor is interfering with their reading comprehension.  That's about a fifth grade reading level there folks.  If you can't handle that on Fark maybe YouTube is more your speed.

Somewhere, up in heaven, Ebert is chuckling.

No he's not.  He was an atheist.

He's in Hell.

No he's not.  That's just made up too.


Pretty much this. This is a humor column, not a serious news article. There is a huge difference between the two. And it was mildly amusing. And I didn't find it difficult to understand at all. And yeah, this guy is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, so I find it ironic that a group of people who constantly whine about the death of journalism doesn't even know when a real journalist is right in front of them. Farkers fail at reading comprehension. This thread makes me sad.
 
2013-04-12 10:28:48 AM  
sundance1028:
This is a humor column, not a serious news article. There is a huge difference between the two. And it was mildly amusing. And I didn't find it difficult to understand at all. And yeah, this guy is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, so I find it ironic that a group of people who constantly whine about the death of journalism doesn't even know when a real journalist is right in front of them. Farkers fail at reading comprehension. This thread makes me sad.

Consider for a moment that there are people here who get that this was not written to be a news story, and also get that this guy is a very respectable and respected writer, and still think this bit of "writing" would have been better off in the circular file.

Having read his article on infant child deaths, I don't dispute he is worthy of his Pulitzers.  But this blog, essay, opinion piece, whatever you want to call it, rambled far too long and with far too little actual humor.  Seems to me he felt compelled to clear the air about that mistakenly-sourced letter, and eventually he did, but not in the amusingly anecdotal way he was aiming for.
 
2013-04-12 10:36:51 AM  
I dozed off a few times during the article, did I miss anything?  Roger wrote a conceited, self-congratulatory letter to the editor and the paper answered with "Are you the bald one or the fat one?" and the author thought Ebert wrote it but it was actually Siskel?  I didn't miss anything did I?
 
2013-04-12 10:41:37 AM  

SkunkWorx: sundance1028:
This is a humor column, not a serious news article. There is a huge difference between the two. And it was mildly amusing. And I didn't find it difficult to understand at all. And yeah, this guy is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, so I find it ironic that a group of people who constantly whine about the death of journalism doesn't even know when a real journalist is right in front of them. Farkers fail at reading comprehension. This thread makes me sad.

Consider for a moment that there are people here who get that this was not written to be a news story, and also get that this guy is a very respectable and respected writer, and still think this bit of "writing" would have been better off in the circular file.

Having read his article on infant child deaths, I don't dispute he is worthy of his Pulitzers.  But this blog, essay, opinion piece, whatever you want to call it, rambled far too long and with far too little actual humor.  Seems to me he felt compelled to clear the air about that mistakenly-sourced letter, and eventually he did, but not in the amusingly anecdotal way he was aiming for.


My original post in this thread was to reference jay Sherman, adding in eberts's quote on the crummy surprise of the village. It sounded like the king of joke that Sherman might tell, only for crickets to chirp and Duke to shout for someone to take him off the air.

You summed things up well. Some of the bigger defenders on the Washington Post comments sound like they would like to hear another riveting tale from Buzz Killington.
 
2013-04-12 11:12:13 AM  

SkunkWorx: Having read his article on infant child deaths, I don't dispute he is worthy of his Pulitzers.  But this blog, essay, opinion piece, whatever you want to call it, rambled far too long and with far too little actual humor.  Seems to me he felt compelled to clear the air about that mistakenly-sourced letter, and eventually he did, but not in the amusingly anecdotal way he was aiming for.


Perhaps for a moment he became delusional and felt like people actually give a shiat about what people who write for a living experience.
 
2013-04-12 12:00:08 PM  
Above we see many fine examples of the bitterness of the unpublished writer.

Well, I guess writing something on Fark is sort of like being published, amiright?
 
2013-04-12 01:13:46 PM  
'Ohhhhhh!!!! Someone wrote a story about Ebert!!!! He's barely room temperature!!!! The writer is a jerk and can't put three sentences together to form a paragraph!!!! Roger was soooooo AWESOME!!!! WE ARE NOT WORTHY OF READING HIS REVIEWS!'

What a bunch of hypocritical pussies you Farkers are.
 
2013-04-12 01:15:27 PM  
No, it is not. Erbert did plenty of horrible writing in his life. I still wonder how the writer of the catastrophe "beyond the valley of the dolls" has the right to critique any one else.
 
2013-04-12 04:03:51 PM  
Why the fark not? I can believe that not everyone thought he was an annoying lump of crap like me, but why the reverent tone for a guy who reviewed movies for a living?
 
2013-04-12 04:07:02 PM  
Oh, wait, my bad. He got cancer and didn't curl up and die immediately so he's a courageous hero. Sorry.
 
Displayed 158 of 158 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report