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 123
    More: Asinine, Washington City Paper, Jason Aldean, concerts  
•       •       •

5963 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Mar 2014 at 11:28 AM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
2014-03-01 12:42:39 PM

LibertyHiller: 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.


Explain it to me in small words then.
 
2014-03-01 12:43:56 PM

ElLoco: 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


Yeah, but Baltimore is their hometown, they employ a lot of people in the area and they are popular around here - its a source of pride for a lot of people here.
 
2014-03-01 12:44:52 PM
Business spikes a story in America®.

Quick, help me to my fainting couch.
 
2014-03-01 12:44:57 PM

ElLoco: 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.


Aren't they the ones that buggered up with some Olympic gear?
 
2014-03-01 12:47:29 PM

rugman11: 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:


If his audience wants to laugh at rednecks, shouldn't he be able to give them what they want?
 
2014-03-01 12:51:18 PM

MFAWG: 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.


...Says the guy who has nothing left to post in defense of his position but evasion, cynicism and hyperbole.  I'm not impressed.
 
2014-03-01 12:54:07 PM

blunto: 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.


I'll say this to any publication:  if your "review" and opinion pieces are nothing more than advertiser cock-sucking, then don't bother having a review column at all.  Or just let your advertisers write it for you and stop pretending you're not owned like whore.  That way we'll know your "reviews" are just fellatious advertising and properly ignore them.

/journalism is dead
 
2014-03-01 12:54:19 PM
So wait, writing an honest review about a Jason Aldean concert makes someone a hipster? Face it, you dumbf*cks' definition of a hipster is a cartoon character you latched onto.

This reviewer isn't some dipsh*t stroking off to South by Southwest. He's a legitimate critic who wrote honestly about what is some of the worst music in the last century of American music.

What's hilarious is the advertisers who threatened to pull their money probably agree with the reviewer behind closed doors. There's some sleazy Live Nation promoter who's been to 10 Jason Aldean shows in the past month, and he wants to kill himself.

Why does everyone who wear Under Armour garb always have this same styrofoam tough guy look on their face?
www.carrington.k12.nd.us
 
2014-03-01 12:57:12 PM

MFAWG: LibertyHiller: 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.

Explain it to me in small words then.



'Editorial content' refers to the content of a paper - anything under direct editorial control. Pretty much everything except advertising.

Reviews, contrary to your claim, are editorial content.
 
2014-03-01 12:58:50 PM
www.baltimorebrew.com

What the fark is this guy hunting, that he needs face paint AND a scope that would let him see a deer a mile past his rifle's range?

Either this guy lured a music critic out into the woods and is going to finish him off ninja-style, or he's so bad a shot he needs to literally sneak up on the deer and wrestle it to the ground before pulling the trigger.

Actual hunters look badass wearing head-to-toe fluorescent orange and yellow, and have never once in their lives held their rifle in that stupid-ass pose. I'm genuinely confused as to how this is going to sell a single piece of sports underwear.
 
2014-03-01 01:02:07 PM

sendtodave: 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.


Recommend me the some artists you like. I want to judge your taste.
 
2014-03-01 01:02:08 PM

MFAWG: LibertyHiller: 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.

Explain it to me in small words then.


These people already have.  Try reading slowly, or stop trolling for a while:

lindalouwho:
Anything that is not an advertisement is editorial content.

John the Magnificent:
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.

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: 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.



Tadaaaaaa.  Papers don't work for advertisers.  Papers work for readers.
 
2014-03-01 01:03:37 PM

semiotix: [www.baltimorebrew.com image 500x234]

What the fark is this guy hunting, that he needs face paint AND a scope that would let him see a deer a mile past his rifle's range?

Either this guy lured a music critic out into the woods and is going to finish him off ninja-style, or he's so bad a shot he needs to literally sneak up on the deer and wrestle it to the ground before pulling the trigger.

Actual hunters look badass wearing head-to-toe fluorescent orange and yellow, and have never once in their lives held their rifle in that stupid-ass pose. I'm genuinely confused as to how this is going to sell a single piece of sports underwear.


How do you think Baltimore solved their homeless problem?
 
2014-03-01 01:08:13 PM
Thing is, this wasn't an honest review. It's very easy to read that as a hit piece. Your job as a reviewer is to determine whether the artist brought what the people went to see. If you think the audience are lowlife redneck scum, then no one can take that away from you, but that's not what you're there to review. Did the artist do his job and gave the people what they wanted, or did he phone it in?

If Aldean had mailed in the performance, and the reviewer gave the show a bad review because of that, the advertiser would have probably accepted that. But to hate on the show because it was designed to appeal to people who weren't cool enough for his standards is just out of line.
 
2014-03-01 01:08:47 PM

FunkOut: ElLoco: 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.

Aren't they the ones that buggered up with some Olympic gear?


They made the suits, yes, but I suspect that they had little to do with the poor performances. Don't get me wrong... they can make some really good products, but they don't make them for the general public and sell the stuff at retail stores. Lots of manufacturers have the same strategy. They have multi-tiered quality, but don't let anyone know short of the retailers that might be interested in selling the more expensive items because they want the general public thinking they are getting 'the best' because it has the logo and name on it.

Lazyboy furniture is a good example of this. They built up a brand name on premium quality. New management takes over from old management a couple of times... and new strategies are developed. Why sell the best we can make when we can sell way cheaper products at 10 times the markup? Go in any retail furniture store and check out the Lazyboy products by comparing them to cheaper 'unknowns.' They're crap. Then find the general manager of the store and ask him to see the catalogue for the tier 1 products... if s/he even knows about them. Then, you'll see a massive increase in construction quality and durability, and an equally massive hike in price.
 
2014-03-01 01:10:05 PM

semiotix: Actual hunters look badass wearing head-to-toe fluorescent orange and yellow, and have never once in their lives held their rifle in that stupid-ass pose. I'm genuinely confused as to how this is going to sell a single piece of sports underwear.


I hate blaze orange.

/Don't want to be shot though...
//My cammo is normal and blaze orange.
 
2014-03-01 01:10:17 PM
This is the ideal newspaper to a lot of people. No bad news; just publish happy stuff and ignore the things you don't want to know about.
 
2014-03-01 01:11:54 PM

I alone am best: sendtodave: 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.

Recommend me the some artists you like. I want to judge your taste.


You wouldn't know them.
 
2014-03-01 01:12:35 PM

sendtodave: I alone am best: sendtodave: 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.

Recommend me the some artists you like. I want to judge your taste.

You wouldn't know them.


I can look them up, with a little thing I like to call.... the internet.
 
2014-03-01 01:15:23 PM
The media in any small town are completely cowed by the major employers in that town, whether they are advertisers or not. Negative stories don't get covered until someone else from outside that sphere of influence breaks the news. Only then do the locals timidly repeat what's already been broken by the outsider. Usually, they bend over in their coverage to give the local big bad a chance to "tell their side of the story". Your hard-hitting journalism today comes from tiny independent weeklies that don't give a fark, because they never got any ad business from those big bads to start with, and people working under the shadow of the big bads enjoy seeing someone other than them "stick it to the Man."
 
2014-03-01 01:15:28 PM

I alone am best: sendtodave: I alone am best: sendtodave: 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.

Recommend me the some artists you like. I want to judge your taste.

You wouldn't know them.

I can look them up, with a little thing I like to call.... the internet.


http://rateyourmusic.com/list/Kevvy/how_to_be_a_music_snob/
 
2014-03-01 01:21:05 PM

I alone am best: I can look them up, with a little thing I like to call.... the internet.


Not sure what you're into... but my personal, current faves are:

Ana Vidovic
Pentatonix
Valentina Lisitsa (farking... insanely... amazing)
Huun-Huur-Tu
Tommy Emmanuel
Adele
Lindsey Sterling
2Cellos
 
2014-03-01 01:23:16 PM

nijika: 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 image 500x234]

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.


Jeez, I lasted a minute or so into the video till he went into his "rap medley" and I had to hold back my lunch. This putz & the equally less talented Florida-Georgia Ambiguously Gay Duo played here a couple a nights ago. Thankfully their fans don't know what country music means.
 
2014-03-01 01:24:27 PM

ZAZ: Both sides are getting way too worked up over a pop concert.


Or, you know, freedom of the press, including from corporate interests.

/I forget: Americans don't care about that old-fashioned stuff like that anymore. Constitutional rights are as passe as "loving your country."
//The Tea Party is guilty of a lot of terrible things, but maybe none so bad as making "conservative" as bad a smear as "liberal" became thirty years ago.
///No, I don't believe patriotism and constitutional defense are inherently conservative values. In fact, perhaps no one has done more to destroy them than the modern conservative movement. But in the public mind they are closely associated. And those who rightly throw out the Tea Party bathwater unfortunately also often throw out the Constitutional baby too.
 
2014-03-01 01:28:45 PM

elkev: Greatest City In Americatm


Over a year living here and this still cracks me up. It's painted on every city bench. If you can read it around the heroin addicts.

/not as hard as you'd think, what with that "heroin lean" doubling them over
// thatguysonheroin.com. Awful website. Farkers will love it.
///I submitted a photo to it. It got posted, 3.5 stars out of five.
 
2014-03-01 01:29:36 PM

semiotix: What the fark is this guy hunting, that he needs face paint AND a scope that would let him see a deer a mile past his rifle's range?

Either this guy lured a music critic out into the woods and is going to finish him off ninja-style, or he's so bad a shot he needs to literally sneak up on the deer and wrestle it to the ground before pulling the trigger.

Actual hunters look badass wearing head-to-toe fluorescent orange and yellow, and have never once in their lives held their rifle in that stupid-ass pose. I'm genuinely confused as to how this is going to sell a single piece of sports underwear.


I just assumed they were going for the extreme right-wing gun nuts, "mucho machos", and law enforcement. The ones least likely to go commando.
 
2014-03-01 01:30:38 PM
I personally gravitate to purchased opinions by advertisers.  I cant stand the thought of reading what people actually think.  It's dishonest to mask an advertisement as actual heartfelt feelings.  We all knew the review was first and foremost supposed to be a fluff piece promoting these subjects, not some drivel doused in honesty.  I go to forums for honest discourse, not newspapers.  What century are any of you in if you think otherwise?  Certainly not the 21st and not even the 20th.
 
2014-03-01 01:33:25 PM
danielsfunny.files.wordpress.com


I in no way support advertisers having veto power over what goes in the newspaper. I will say this. I'd never heard of the reviewer in question but from the article it sounds like this wasn't really his genre of country music.

CSB: About 10 years ago my brother-in-law took my nieces to a Hilary Duff concert as a reward for good report cards. He seemed to be the only guy there until he went to the concession stand and noticed this 50s-ish older guy there and struck up a conversation with him. Apparently the guy was sent by the local newspaper to review the concert. He had never heard one of her songs before but the woman that was supposed to be there was sick (and he had the least seniority of the available people) so his boss stuck him in a car, gave him the ticket and told him to review it.
 
2014-03-01 01:34:18 PM

brimed03: ZAZ: Both sides are getting way too worked up over a pop concert.

Or, you know, freedom of the press, including from corporate interests.

/I forget: Americans don't care about that old-fashioned stuff like that anymore. Constitutional rights are as passe as "loving your country."
//The Tea Party is guilty of a lot of terrible things, but maybe none so bad as making "conservative" as bad a smear as "liberal" became thirty years ago.
///No, I don't believe patriotism and constitutional defense are inherently conservative values. In fact, perhaps no one has done more to destroy them than the modern conservative movement. But in the public mind they are closely associated. And those who rightly throw out the Tea Party bathwater unfortunately also often throw out the Constitutional baby too.


You should seek help.
 
2014-03-01 01:35:16 PM
1) I don't know who Jason Aldean is either, never heard of him
2) 40 years ago, I thought the City Paper was put out by pot smoking hippies. Not a bad thing since I was one of them myself back then. Have rarely read it myself even to this day. If I picked one up once a year it was a lot.
3) Never heard of this other paper, "Baltimore Brew" till just now, no idea it existed. Sounds like something maybe run by die hard Natty-Boh guzzlers.
4) Under-Armor is almost God-like in some circles in this city as one of the few Corporations that still makes something locally around here since the rest of the major manufacturers who used to provide jobs have dried up and blown away.
5) I couldn't actually give a damn about this whole issue and have no idea why Fark green lighted it
 
2014-03-01 01:36:42 PM

MFAWG: 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?


Getting butt-frustrated in a thread about a Jason Aldean review.

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-01 01:36:56 PM

pdieten: Thing is, this wasn't an honest review. It's very easy to read that as a hit piece. Your job as a reviewer is to determine whether the artist brought what the people went to see. If you think the audience are lowlife redneck scum, then no one can take that away from you, but that's not what you're there to review. Did the artist do his job and gave the people what they wanted, or did he phone it in?

If Aldean had mailed in the performance, and the reviewer gave the show a bad review because of that, the advertiser would have probably accepted that. But to hate on the show because it was designed to appeal to people who weren't cool enough for his standards is just out of line.


No it's not. His job was to give his opinion along with the facts (set, list, number of fans, etc.)

It's not the same as, say, writing about the turmoil in Ukraine.
 
2014-03-01 01:38:56 PM

The Flexecutioner: I personally gravitate to purchased opinions by advertisers.  I cant stand the thought of reading what people actually think.  It's dishonest to mask an advertisement as actual heartfelt feelings.  We all knew the review was first and foremost supposed to be a fluff piece promoting these subjects, not some drivel doused in honesty.  I go to forums for honest discourse, not newspapers.  What century are any of you in if you think otherwise?  Certainly not the 21st and not even the 20th.


*giggle*
 
2014-03-01 01:38:57 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.


... which is what "editorial content" is, as I understand it. There's news, which is supposed to be be based on facts; and editorials, which are based on opinion. This is the latter, an opinion piece written by someone the CP editors recognized as having sufficient expertise to cover.

Didn't I read in tfa that the reviewer has already been assigned to write a regular music review cleverly called "Strum und Twang?" Where did Fark get the idea that this guy wasnt qualified to do this review? IIRC, that isn't supported by anything in tfa.

/even *if* he doesn't like country, which is at best dubiously implied by what he said about he went to the concert thinking if it was good, maybe his friends would enjoy it... Even if he doesn't like it, a professional critic doesn't have to like a genre to successfully critique it. It may help, but it's not required.
 
2014-03-01 01:42:04 PM
As an actual journalist, I feel compelled to sound off here.

 It's an absolute outrage that a new outlet would give in to complaints from an advertiser and pull a review. Advertisers should not be allowed to affect editorial content (and yes, a review is editorial content). There's supposed to be a brick wall a mile wide and higher than heaven between editorial and advertising. The business (advertising) side should have nothing to do with anyone or anything in editorial. This is a basic principle of journalism and journalistic ethics. To do otherwise is a betrayal of the readers and the public trust.

It doesn't matter what you think of the reviewer, it doesn't matter if he's a hipster douchbag, it doesn't matter if he went in with a bad attitude, etc.It's not his job to "to determine whether the artist brought what the people went to see."  He's a reviewer, it's his job to give his opinion of the show. If he wants to make comments about the crowd at the show, he can do that. It's within the purview of the editor to exercise editorial control and it would have been perfectly acceptable for his editor to make changes. But editors tend to be pretty hands-off with reviewers and columnists since, once again, it's their job to give their opinion. You simply can't say a reviewer is biased, he's not supposed to be unbiased. His job description is to be biased, to give his opinion. It's impossible for a review to be "a hit piece" because it's one person's opinion.

 The only relevant fact about his story is that he's a reviewer, paid for his opinion.

You're free to dislike or disagree with his opinion. That doesn't make the paper wrong for publishing his opinion, whatever it may be.

pdieten: Thing is, this wasn't an honest review .
This was absolutely an honest review. It was the reviewer's honest opinion of the show. It would only be a dishonest review if he wrote something that was NOT his honest opinion.

pdieten: Your job as a reviewer is to determine whether the artist brought what the people went to see
No, your job as a reviewer is to give your opinion of the show. A review is not simply "yes, the people who were there liked it or didn't like it." A reviewer can include this information if he chooses, but his job is not to convey the opinion of the crowd. It's to give his own personal opinion.
 
2014-03-01 01:47:21 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?!


Have you ever read a copy of your local City Paper? It exists in most major cities.

CP is not The Gray Lady. It's meant to be way punchier. It uses color throughout. It's kind of gritty, from the style if writing to the quality of paper and ink used. The writers are expected to be colorful in their word choice. Didn't you read the part about the "Mr. Wrong" column that got yanked because he used the f-word too many times? Not because he used the f-word. Not because he used it repeatedly. Because he used it *too many times*-- "like every other word" was the quote, I believe. For the record, the column is stupid as hell and the guy who writes it is almost certainly a Farker.
 
2014-03-01 01:48:06 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.


Yeah, that was my thought too.
 
2014-03-01 01:49:48 PM
I can't even figure out why they did a review of this concert. He's famous enough to not be an up and coming act or anything. If you like Jason Aldean you don't care and will see him anyway, if you don't like Jason Aldean this is a funny snarky review and you might read it all the way through. If they never wanted anybody to see the review they should have left well enough alone and barely anybody would have read it. Instead they now have a national news story.
 
2014-03-01 01:51:13 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.


*its, not it's.

Other than that, John the Magnificent, you've earned your sobriquet today. Well said.
 
2014-03-01 01:55:01 PM

semiotix: What the fark is this guy hunting, that he needs face paint AND a scope that would let him see a deer a mile past his rifle's range?


I dunno, but if he came stumbling out to coffee at the deer camp looking like that, there would be much laughter at his expense. It would be years before he lived it down. There's a good chance it could become deer camp lore. The guy who accidentally sucked a dick 5 years ago would use this to deflect people retelling his story.
 
2014-03-01 02:03:36 PM
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.

Nothing you've said here is relevant. It's not a free speech issue, free speech rights are a matter between the speaker and government. Only a government can censor or violate free speech rights. The issue here is a breach of basic journalistic ethics; at no time should an advertiser have any control over any editorial content.

It's up to a paper who they want to have write a review. They can send the food reviewer to any kind of restaurant and the music reviewer to any kind of concert. Hell, they can send send the food critic to review a concert if they choose. They might not get a good review and it probably wouldn't serve the readers, but it's still up to the paper to make that call.

I don't know what you mean by "He wrote his review to partially and didn't take any of this into account in his choice to blast the show." I take it to mean that you think he wasn't impartial. I'm not sure what he was supposed to take into account in his choice to blast the show. He's a reviewer, he can make a choice to blast the show. He's not supposed to be impartial, he's a reviewer, it's his job to give his opinion.

There's no such thing as an "unbiased review." By definition, a review is biased, it's someone's opinion. It's not supposed to be unbiased.

MattyFridays: 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.

He's the music reviewer, that's exactly who the paper should send to review a concert. They're not supposed to send somebody who they know will like the show (or somebody they know won't like the show). They're supposed to send someone who will give his opinion, good or bad, of the show. That's the reviewer's job, to give an opinion.

The paper did nothing wrong by sending this particular person to the show or by publishing what he wrote about the show. What they did wrong was let an advertiser influence what they published.

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.

There's no such thing as "a hit piece" or bias in the context of a review. He's a reviewer, he's paid to write his opinion. He's not supposed to be unbiased, he's supposed to give his opinion.
 
2014-03-01 02:10:16 PM

MFAWG: 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?


*its, not it's.

Other than that, you've earned your Fark handle today, provided that "MFAWG" does not stand for anything but rather is supposed to be pronounced as a word that sounds like a drunk slurring "I'm in a fog."

If this column was so "frivolous," why did two companies whose annual profits are counted in the hundreds of millions bother to get it sunk? It's not because they're "sensitive."

Entertainment is a multi-billion, perhaps -trillion dollar business. Without critics fighting to keep the honest, they get away with taking those b/trillions while giving people less and less for their money. Worse, the art itself degenerates until there's no "art" left in it. Many would argue that this is already happening.

This critic, for instance. And look what happened.

As you denigrate those responsible for demanding better-- in whatever tone of voice they choose-- so we get farther from Pavarotti/Madonna/RUN-DMC/Miles Davis/Johnny Cash and closer to Justin Bieber/Miley Cyrus/ManufacturedIdiocracyBandofyourchoice.

/disclaimer: Madonna may not be everyone's taste-- nor mine-- but succeed or fail she worked *hard* at her craft and took the lumps the critics gave her. Ditto for anyone else on that list you don't like.
 
2014-03-01 02:15:32 PM

Z-clipped: MFAWG: 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.

...Says the guy who has nothing left to post in defense of his position but evasion, cynicism and hyperbole.  I'm not impressed.


Good. Now go fark yourself.
 
2014-03-01 02:17:50 PM

I alone am best: I hate blaze orange.

/Don't want to be shot though...


Right. In other words, the fact that you actually go hunting has had some impact in how you behave in the world. You probably don't try to shoot offscreen or press "R" when you need to reload, either.

EatenTheSun: I dunno, but if he came stumbling out to coffee at the deer camp looking like that, there would be much laughter at his expense. It would be years before he lived it down.


Something tells me you'd have a better chance of Sarah Palin wandering up to your camp.
 
2014-03-01 02:21:26 PM
As someone who gets a spam email from Livenation every day despite having bought my last concert ticket for Jethro Tull in 1975, I'm getting a kick out of their attempt to prop up a talentless poprapper.
 
2014-03-01 02:21:47 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.


Maybe I need to reread tfa because nowhere did I see anything that made me think he went there to do a hit piece. Maybe it didn't sound as though he expected to have a good time personally, but he said he hoped if it was good enough his friends could go and enjoy it.

A critic's job isn't actually to *like* the thing being reviewed. The job is to say whether the thing was *done well.* Professional are very capable of making the distinction. They have to be. Just as you don't have to like every aspect of your job, but you still have to do it well.
 
2014-03-01 02:24:49 PM

brimed03: 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.

Maybe I need to reread tfa because nowhere did I see anything that made me think he went there to do a hit piece. Maybe it didn't sound as though he expected to have a good time personally, but he said he hoped if it was good enough his friends could go and enjoy it.

A critic's job isn't actually to *like* the thing being reviewed. The job is to say whether the thing was *done well.* Professional are very capable of making the distinction. They have to be. Just as you don't have to like every aspect of your job, but you still have to do it well.


He actually complains about the odor of the fecal matter of the fans.

Quality journalism there
 
2014-03-01 02:28:16 PM

MattyFridays: 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.


You don't have to be a special expert to review a concert. Editorial training plus a solid general base in the area are enough to recognize hyped, manufactured, and packaged crap. He saw it, he called them out in it, and the only one butthurt was maybe the performer, if he's deluded himself into thinking he's actually good and not just riding a sponsored 15-minutes of fame.

Multi-billion dollar businesses do not make decisions based on butthurt. They got the column yanked because it exposed their asset to potential loss.
 
2014-03-01 02:29:03 PM

MFAWG: brimed03: 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.

Maybe I need to reread tfa because nowhere did I see anything that made me think he went there to do a hit piece. Maybe it didn't sound as though he expected to have a good time personally, but he said he hoped if it was good enough his friends could go and enjoy it.

A critic's job isn't actually to *like* the thing being reviewed. The job is to say whether the thing was *done well.* Professional are very capable of making the distinction. They have to be. Just as you don't have to like every aspect of your job, but you still have to do it well.

He actually complains about the odor of the fecal matter of the fans.

Quality journalism there



Quality or not, the important bit about this story is how the advertisers and the controlling company acted.
 
Displayed 50 of 123 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 »






Report