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.

(Baltimore Brew)   Baltimore City Paper locks all its writers out from their own blogs over the fallout from a negative review of a Jason Aldean concert. Reason? Under Armour was protecting its house   (baltimorebrew.com) divider line 121
    More: Asinine, Washington City Paper, Jason Aldean, concerts  
•       •       •

6059 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Mar 2014 at 11:28 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-01 08:48:43 AM  
And this is *before* the Baltimore Sun takes it over? I believe Baltimore's last true political statesman put it best when he said "shiat."
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-03-01 08:53:00 AM  
Both sides are getting way too worked up over a pop concert.
 
2014-03-01 09:46:25 AM  
I bet that this guy was behind it:

1.bp.blogspot.com

/the fifth season of "The Wire" was better than some people say
//still by far the weakest season though
 
2014-03-01 11:37:04 AM  
Greatest City In Americatm
 
2014-03-01 11:38:38 AM  
I understand the free speech aspect vs corporate control standpoint, but look at it from the other point of view.  You shouldn't send the french cuisine expert to review burger king or the fine arts expert to review a jackass movie.  This guy reviewed something that he was never going to like.  He wrote his review to partially and didn't take any of this into account in his choice to blast the show.  The advertisers pay for that paper and that writer to have a job.  Be a little more unbiased next time and things might end up more reasonably.
 
2014-03-01 11:46:30 AM  
That review is a hack hit job. I'm no fan of corporate Nashville, but that doesn't make the review anything more than hipster douchebaggery, right down to the mention of that artist the reviewer likes but the rubes have never heard of.
 
2014-03-01 11:47:06 AM  

blunto: I understand the free speech aspect vs corporate control standpoint, but look at it from the other point of view.   You shouldn't send the french cuisine expert to review burger king or the fine arts expert to review a jackass movie.  This guy reviewed something that he was never going to like.  He wrote his review to partially and didn't take any of this into account in his choice to blast the show.  The advertisers pay for that paper and that writer to have a job.  Be a little more unbiased next time and things might end up more reasonably.


This part I agree with.

This part is dead wrong. The idea that advertisers should have any sort of editorial input is horrifying, cynical, undemocratic, and deeply corrupt. And yes, I know it's common.  Doesn't change things.
 
2014-03-01 11:49:20 AM  

Lochsteppe: blunto: I understand the free speech aspect vs corporate control standpoint, but look at it from the other point of view.   You shouldn't send the french cuisine expert to review burger king or the fine arts expert to review a jackass movie.  This guy reviewed something that he was never going to like.  He wrote his review to partially and didn't take any of this into account in his choice to blast the show.  The advertisers pay for that paper and that writer to have a job.  Be a little more unbiased next time and things might end up more reasonably.

This part I agree with.

This part is dead wrong. The idea that advertisers should have any sort of editorial input is horrifying, cynical, undemocratic, and deeply corrupt. And yes, I know it's common.  Doesn't change things.


We're not talking about editorial content. We're talking about a review of a show by a pop artist.
 
2014-03-01 11:50:41 AM  
Who?
 
2014-03-01 11:52:58 AM  
This sucks gangrene donkey d*ck.

It's not suprising tho. The slow death of newspapers and the greed of corporations led us here. They probably could not survive a month without the big bucks from LiveNation.

A good while back one of our dailys aggressively followed an investigation concerning the sheriff. After a while, the sheriff pulled his office's real estate/foreclosure/sheriff sale listings and gave it to another paper. 1.1million in advertising dollars gone. They slashed jobs and were never more than a shadow of their former selves after that.

UPMC Health Systems is a huge advertiser here. No one talks about it, but gone are the days of hard-hitting investigative stories on local health/mental care. And currently there is an ongoing clusterfark of problems concerning paying a living wage and UPMC's health insurance. Now THAT used to be conflict of interest. Still is, but you know....
 
2014-03-01 11:54:29 AM  

MFAWG: Lochsteppe: blunto: I understand the free speech aspect vs corporate control standpoint, but look at it from the other point of view.   You shouldn't send the french cuisine expert to review burger king or the fine arts expert to review a jackass movie.  This guy reviewed something that he was never going to like.  He wrote his review to partially and didn't take any of this into account in his choice to blast the show.  The advertisers pay for that paper and that writer to have a job.  Be a little more unbiased next time and things might end up more reasonably.

This part I agree with.

This part is dead wrong. The idea that advertisers should have any sort of editorial input is horrifying, cynical, undemocratic, and deeply corrupt. And yes, I know it's common.  Doesn't change things.

We're not talking about editorial content. We're talking about a review of a show by a pop artist.


Anything that is not an advertisement is editorial content.
 
2014-03-01 11:54:37 AM  
I can't imagine how anybody with two brain cells to rub together and any sort of taste in music could give that tripe anything BUT a negative review. It's stupid music for stupid people. You want a positive review? Then  send Cletus or Brandine from the local trailer park.

/snob
 
2014-03-01 11:55:23 AM  

MFAWG: Lochsteppe: blunto: I understand the free speech aspect vs corporate control standpoint, but look at it from the other point of view.   You shouldn't send the french cuisine expert to review burger king or the fine arts expert to review a jackass movie.  This guy reviewed something that he was never going to like.  He wrote his review to partially and didn't take any of this into account in his choice to blast the show.  The advertisers pay for that paper and that writer to have a job.  Be a little more unbiased next time and things might end up more reasonably.

This part I agree with.

This part is dead wrong. The idea that advertisers should have any sort of editorial input is horrifying, cynical, undemocratic, and deeply corrupt. And yes, I know it's common.  Doesn't change things.

We're not talking about editorial content. We're talking about a review of a show by a pop artist.


Please explain the difference. Thanks in advance
 
2014-03-01 11:55:30 AM  

blunto: I understand the free speech aspect vs corporate control standpoint, but look at it from the other point of view.  You shouldn't send the french cuisine expert to review burger king or the fine arts expert to review a jackass movie.  This guy reviewed something that he was never going to like.  He wrote his review to partially and didn't take any of this into account in his choice to blast the show.  The advertisers pay for that paper and that writer to have a job.  Be a little more unbiased next time and things might end up more reasonably.


Took the words right out of my mouth.  As soon as I read some of the language this guy used, it was basically the same playbook the food critic used reviewing Guy Fieri's restaurant.  He was being a dick just to be a dick.

"It was like a beer commercial" WHAT THE FARK DO YOU THINK JASON ALDEAN IS, a jam band?!
 
2014-03-01 11:58:55 AM  
Listening to Jason Aldean is a violation of the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
 
2014-03-01 11:59:09 AM  

MFAWG: That review is a hack hit job. I'm no fan of corporate Nashville, but that doesn't make the review anything more than hipster douchebaggery, right down to the mention of that artist the reviewer likes but the rubes have never heard of.


You don't know what this word means or how to correctly use it. Please stop.
 
2014-03-01 11:59:10 AM  

blunto: I understand the free speech aspect vs corporate control standpoint, but look at it from the other point of view.  You shouldn't send the french cuisine expert to review burger king or the fine arts expert to review a jackass movie.  This guy reviewed something that he was never going to like.  He wrote his review to partially and didn't take any of this into account in his choice to blast the show.  The advertisers pay for that paper and that writer to have a job.  Be a little more unbiased next time and things might end up more reasonably.


1) You know how everyone can tell you stopped reading after a couple of paragraphs?

FTFA  " He and Grim also argued that Kitchens is a respected writer about country music and pointed out that he is now doing  CP's "Strum und Twang" country music column, but "it fell on deaf ears," Serpick said. "

2) A simple Google Search for "Travis Kitchens Country Music" would have saved you from embarrassing yourself.

3) The paper owes it's readers, not it's advertisers.  The advertisers buy the audience, not the content.  If the content is honest then the readers will come and the advertisers can buy them.  If the content isn't then they won't and that is the end of the paper.

4) The management of this paper are not only clueless about the business they are in and the way it works at the most fundamental level, but they are chicken-shiats as well.
 
2014-03-01 12:00:03 PM  
Couldn't they just throw in a generic concert review from a wire service? In my experience that's what all the other articles in a newspaper are these days.
 
2014-03-01 12:00:31 PM  
lindalouwho:

Anything that is not an advertisement is editorial content.

There's a difference between being a columnist and being a journalist.

See Mushnick, Phil.
 
2014-03-01 12:01:52 PM  

TheDirtyNacho: MFAWG: Lochsteppe: blunto: I understand the free speech aspect vs corporate control standpoint, but look at it from the other point of view.   You shouldn't send the french cuisine expert to review burger king or the fine arts expert to review a jackass movie.  This guy reviewed something that he was never going to like.  He wrote his review to partially and didn't take any of this into account in his choice to blast the show.  The advertisers pay for that paper and that writer to have a job.  Be a little more unbiased next time and things might end up more reasonably.

This part I agree with.

This part is dead wrong. The idea that advertisers should have any sort of editorial input is horrifying, cynical, undemocratic, and deeply corrupt. And yes, I know it's common.  Doesn't change things.

We're not talking about editorial content. We're talking about a review of a show by a pop artist.

Please explain the difference. Thanks in advance


Sure. Reviewing an entertainment on it's merits is about a fairly frivolous activity that doesn't really have an impact on anything but anybody that chose to go. And it's over, finished. Aldean had moved on to wherever his next stop was.

Starting to see what I'm saying, or are you going to play smug and stupid all morning?
 
2014-03-01 12:03:09 PM  

Moopy Mac: MFAWG: That review is a hack hit job. I'm no fan of corporate Nashville, but that doesn't make the review anything more than hipster douchebaggery, right down to the mention of that artist the reviewer likes but the rubes have never heard of.

You don't know what this word means or how to correctly use it. Please stop.


I'm going to guess that the popular music reviewer in a major market has a beard and fedora.
 
2014-03-01 12:03:28 PM  

John the Magnificent: blunto: I understand the free speech aspect vs corporate control standpoint, but look at it from the other point of view.  You shouldn't send the french cuisine expert to review burger king or the fine arts expert to review a jackass movie.  This guy reviewed something that he was never going to like.  He wrote his review to partially and didn't take any of this into account in his choice to blast the show.  The advertisers pay for that paper and that writer to have a job.  Be a little more unbiased next time and things might end up more reasonably.

1) You know how everyone can tell you stopped reading after a couple of paragraphs?

FTFA  " He and Grim also argued that Kitchens is a respected writer about country music and pointed out that he is now doing  CP's "Strum und Twang" country music column, but "it fell on deaf ears," Serpick said. "

2) A simple Google Search for "Travis Kitchens Country Music" would have saved you from embarrassing yourself.

3) The paper owes it's readers, not it's advertisers.  The advertisers buy the audience, not the content.  If the content is honest then the readers will come and the advertisers can buy them.  If the content isn't then they won't and that is the end of the paper.

4) The management of this paper are not only clueless about the business they are in and the way it works at the most fundamental level, but they are chicken-shiats as well.


The fact that a respected critic slammed the product so hard is why they freaked out and pulled the article.

It's cheaper to do that, than to polish a turd of an act.
 
2014-03-01 12:03:55 PM  
Im glad i work in an industry and am competent enough at my job that I could say fark you at any time and have a new job within a week

It must be soul crushing to have to compromise yourself because you are afraid to lose your plum job as editor of a dying paper in a dying city
 
2014-03-01 12:04:43 PM  
Am I missing anything by not knowing who Jason Aldean is?
 
2014-03-01 12:07:04 PM  
John the Magnificent:
2) A simple Google Search for "Travis Kitchens Country Music" would have saved you from embarrassing yourself.


A google search for Travis Kitchens Country Music links to this story, and a whole bunch of unrelated results.  Yes, he's a hugely respected and well known country music critic, GTFO.

No matter what, by his own admission, he went into that concert wanting to do a hit piece,  He was biased and had pre-conceived notions he couldn't let go of.
 
2014-03-01 12:13:19 PM  

MFAWG: We're not talking about editorial content. We're talking about a review of a show by a pop artist.


Yes.  Yes you are talking about editorial content.  If it isn't. then why are the advertisers getting all pissy about it?
 
2014-03-01 12:14:17 PM  
"I'm about to get my pissed off on."

What does that even mean?
 
2014-03-01 12:14:48 PM  

MattyFridays: John the Magnificent:
2) A simple Google Search for "Travis Kitchens Country Music" would have saved you from embarrassing yourself.


A google search for Travis Kitchens Country Music links to this story, and a whole bunch of unrelated results.  Yes, he's a hugely respected and well known country music critic, GTFO.

No matter what, by his own admission, he went into that concert wanting to do a hit piece,  He was biased and had pre-conceived notions he couldn't let go of.


That may be true but its irrelevant

The paper pulled a piece because of pressure from advertisers. Its a cowardly and shiatty thing to do but probably necessary given the economics of running a newspaper
 
2014-03-01 12:15:14 PM  
One more thing about Kitchens' writing: It's obvious that he knows country music, but it's more "indy" country or "outlaw" country, a box that Jason Aldean does not fit into.  Again: What happened here was no different that sending the snooty, pretentious hipster reviewer into a situation he'd never give a chance to.
 
2014-03-01 12:16:26 PM  

hlehmann: MFAWG: We're not talking about editorial content. We're talking about a review of a show by a pop artist.

Yes.  Yes you are talking about editorial content.  If it isn't. then why are the advertisers getting all pissy about it?


Because the reviewer is a dickhead.
 
2014-03-01 12:16:39 PM  
media.tumblr.com

... said the Corporations
 
2014-03-01 12:16:56 PM  
I suddenly became more fascinated that anyone would want to see this ham-faced rube on stage.  Is there anything more authentic than this??

www.baltimorebrew.com

Like, are we now at the point in our society that even having someone who's talentless, but at least nice to look at, is too threatening to the american public?

I'm really not into judging others for liking things that I don't like, but you can't convince me that this isn't the musical equivalent of  poop directly from a butt.
 
2014-03-01 12:18:13 PM  

LandOfChocolate: MattyFridays: John the Magnificent:
2) A simple Google Search for "Travis Kitchens Country Music" would have saved you from embarrassing yourself.


A google search for Travis Kitchens Country Music links to this story, and a whole bunch of unrelated results.  Yes, he's a hugely respected and well known country music critic, GTFO.

No matter what, by his own admission, he went into that concert wanting to do a hit piece,  He was biased and had pre-conceived notions he couldn't let go of.

That may be true but its irrelevant

The paper pulled a piece because of pressure from advertisers. Its a cowardly and shiatty thing to do but probably necessary given the economics of running a newspaper


It's not like they pulled an expose on any number of things of actual import.
 
2014-03-01 12:18:16 PM  

MFAWG: Starting to see what I'm saying, or are you going to play smug and stupid all morning?


It looks to me like you're saying that its fine for journalists to shill for advertisers, as long as you don't personally have a stake in the topic of the story.  It's not, ever, because it undermines the entire journalistic process whether the story is about political corruption, corporate fraud, or cat litter.  This is one of those "matter of principle" things that people are always talking about.
 
2014-03-01 12:19:28 PM  

MattyFridays: John the Magnificent:
2) A simple Google Search for "Travis Kitchens Country Music" would have saved you from embarrassing yourself.


A google search for Travis Kitchens Country Music links to this story, and a whole bunch of unrelated results.  Yes, he's a hugely respected and well known country music critic, GTFO.

No matter what, by his own admission, he went into that concert wanting to do a hit piece,  He was biased and had pre-conceived notions he couldn't let go of.


Where's this admission? Because in the article we are discussing he says the opposite.
 
2014-03-01 12:21:03 PM  

MFAWG: LandOfChocolate: MattyFridays: John the Magnificent:
2) A simple Google Search for "Travis Kitchens Country Music" would have saved you from embarrassing yourself.


A google search for Travis Kitchens Country Music links to this story, and a whole bunch of unrelated results.  Yes, he's a hugely respected and well known country music critic, GTFO.

No matter what, by his own admission, he went into that concert wanting to do a hit piece,  He was biased and had pre-conceived notions he couldn't let go of.

That may be true but its irrelevant

The paper pulled a piece because of pressure from advertisers. Its a cowardly and shiatty thing to do but probably necessary given the economics of running a newspaper

It's not like they pulled an expose on any number of things of actual import.


Wow, those field goals are on wheels!
 
2014-03-01 12:21:22 PM  
@Matty Friday. Actually he said he wanted to shock his music snob friends by liking the concert. FWIW
 
2014-03-01 12:22:31 PM  

MFAWG: It's not like they pulled an expose on any number of things of actual import.


Not that the importance of the story is even relevant, but how do you not make the connection that the review was obviously important to someone or we wouldn't be talking about it?
 
2014-03-01 12:26:42 PM  

MattyFridays: blunto: I understand the free speech aspect vs corporate control standpoint, but look at it from the other point of view.  You shouldn't send the french cuisine expert to review burger king or the fine arts expert to review a jackass movie.  This guy reviewed something that he was never going to like.  He wrote his review to partially and didn't take any of this into account in his choice to blast the show.  The advertisers pay for that paper and that writer to have a job.  Be a little more unbiased next time and things might end up more reasonably.

Took the words right out of my mouth.  As soon as I read some of the language this guy used, it was basically the same playbook the food critic used reviewing Guy Fieri's restaurant.  He was being a dick just to be a dick.

"It was like a beer commercial" WHAT THE FARK DO YOU THINK JASON ALDEAN IS, a jam band?!


a writer/journalists job is to write what s/he sees and hears.

When opinion comes into play, like in reviews, the above applies along with the authors opinion, no more, no less.

I like reading reviews I disagree with eithet way, gives me perspective on how other people think. For instance - I never cared for U2, still don't, back in the day I read reviews to try to understand what all the fuss was about.but that's just me.
 
2014-03-01 12:27:22 PM  
Ha ha. You made fun of MacGyver Jason Aldean.
www.blogcdn.com
/all my lady friends who like country think he's teh hawt
 
2014-03-01 12:29:49 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: ... said the Corporations


Until my eyes/brain saw that the white space was a necktie, that was a truely disturbing pic.
 
2014-03-01 12:34:13 PM  
Goddammit City Paper! When an advertiser threatens to leave you over your editorial content, there is only one acceptable response. You tell them good bye. That is all.
 
2014-03-01 12:35:50 PM  
"Strum und Twang"?

Is that like something like "Sturm und Drang"?
 
2014-03-01 12:36:39 PM  

MFAWG: Lochsteppe: blunto: I understand the free speech aspect vs corporate control standpoint, but look at it from the other point of view.   You shouldn't send the french cuisine expert to review burger king or the fine arts expert to review a jackass movie.  This guy reviewed something that he was never going to like.  He wrote his review to partially and didn't take any of this into account in his choice to blast the show.  The advertisers pay for that paper and that writer to have a job.  Be a little more unbiased next time and things might end up more reasonably.

This part I agree with.

This part is dead wrong. The idea that advertisers should have any sort of editorial input is horrifying, cynical, undemocratic, and deeply corrupt. And yes, I know it's common.  Doesn't change things.

We're not talking about editorial content. We're talking about a review of a show by a pop artist.


Wow, you so do not have the vocabulary needed to understand the problem.
 
2014-03-01 12:37:37 PM  
"He struts around the stage with his prop guitar like a rockstar android wiggling his ass in a manner so contrived it makes Madonna look like Miles Davis in comparison."

This sentence is hilarious. Android ass!
 
2014-03-01 12:37:41 PM  

MFAWG: LandOfChocolate: MattyFridays: John the Magnificent:
2) A simple Google Search for "Travis Kitchens Country Music" would have saved you from embarrassing yourself.


A google search for Travis Kitchens Country Music links to this story, and a whole bunch of unrelated results.  Yes, he's a hugely respected and well known country music critic, GTFO.

No matter what, by his own admission, he went into that concert wanting to do a hit piece,  He was biased and had pre-conceived notions he couldn't let go of.

That may be true but its irrelevant

The paper pulled a piece because of pressure from advertisers. Its a cowardly and shiatty thing to do but probably necessary given the economics of running a newspaper

It's not like they pulled an expose on any number of things of actual import.


Which indicates things may be worse then we think, if the controlling company is willing to do this over something so unimportant.
 
2014-03-01 12:37:42 PM  
I also have never heard of this guy.

Underarmour is the Bose, Monster Cable, and Heineken of the clothing industry... incredibly overpriced crapola that are effectively the absolute best products that marketing can buy.
 
2014-03-01 12:39:34 PM  

Z-clipped: MFAWG: It's not like they pulled an expose on any number of things of actual import.

Not that the importance of the story is even relevant, but how do you not make the connection that the review was obviously important to someone or we wouldn't be talking about it?


We're talking about a reviewer that went to great lengths to point out that shiat stinks. Somehow the paper shiatcanning the review is the death of modern journalism.

I will say they probably shouldn't have printed it in the first place, but they're probably trying to stay edgy and relevant.
 
2014-03-01 12:39:56 PM  

MattyFridays: blunto: I understand the free speech aspect vs corporate control standpoint, but look at it from the other point of view.  You shouldn't send the french cuisine expert to review burger king or the fine arts expert to review a jackass movie.  This guy reviewed something that he was never going to like.  He wrote his review to partially and didn't take any of this into account in his choice to blast the show.  The advertisers pay for that paper and that writer to have a job.  Be a little more unbiased next time and things might end up more reasonably.

Took the words right out of my mouth.  As soon as I read some of the language this guy used, it was basically the same playbook the food critic used reviewing Guy Fieri's restaurant.  He was being a dick just to be a dick.

"It was like a beer commercial" WHAT THE FARK DO YOU THINK JASON ALDEAN IS, a jam band?!


Low brow shiat should be called what it is, and stupid people that enjoy such shiat should be mocked for their low standards.

And the weasels that sell crap to said stupid people via said low brow shiat shouldn't get to stop said mockery.
 
2014-03-01 12:42:36 PM  

Moopy Mac: MattyFridays: John the Magnificent:
2) A simple Google Search for "Travis Kitchens Country Music" would have saved you from embarrassing yourself.


A google search for Travis Kitchens Country Music links to this story, and a whole bunch of unrelated results.  Yes, he's a hugely respected and well known country music critic, GTFO.

No matter what, by his own admission, he went into that concert wanting to do a hit piece,  He was biased and had pre-conceived notions he couldn't let go of.

Where's this admission? Because in the article we are discussing he says the opposite.


I think it's pretty obvious from the tone of the review that he's writing a review for non-country music fans and that he's writing a review for them to laugh at.  I mean, right from the start, you get lines like

"Reams of rednecks streamed in from every direction across Baltimore Street and it took a half hour to get through the line and inside to will call."

How is this in any way a review of the show?  This line is only there to give people who wouldn't go to a concert like this (or probably any concert at an arena) a visual image to mock.  Or how about

"You might not recognize his name, but that's ok, because you probably wouldn't recognize his music either, or at least not be able to distinguish it from anything else on country radio."

I would like to think most country music fans are going to recognize Aldean.  He's been nominated for a crapload of CMAs and other country music awards (including Male Vocalist and Entertainer of the Year for three years running) and he was even nominated for a Grammy this year for Best Country Album.

If you want to write an article about the corporate invasion of country music, that would be interesting.  But this wasn't a review of a concert, it was a review of the people who would enjoy such a concert ("the adults in the crowd air scratched while half-staggering like they'd just had a stroke") and clearly was written for an audience that wouldn't listen to this music no matter what he says but who would enjoy having a good laugh at the "reams of rednecks."

They may as well have pulled the article and replaced it with this:

www.quickmeme.com
 
Displayed 50 of 121 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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