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 27
    More: Asinine, Washington City Paper, Jason Aldean, concerts  
•       •       •

6063 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-03-01 11:59:10 AM  
5 votes:

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 11:47:06 AM  
4 votes:

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 11:54:29 AM  
3 votes:

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 02:03:36 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:58:50 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:37:42 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:18:16 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:54:37 AM  
2 votes:
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
2014-03-02 02:43:35 AM  
1 votes:

I alone am best: 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.


I am.  Every Election Day.
2014-03-02 01:48:03 AM  
1 votes:

ElLoco: brimed03: 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.

Any recommended, not-overpriced alternatives in your experience?

/asking seriously

ColdPruf and Carhardtt are lower priced alternatives. The best is probably Polartec, but Odlo or Smartwool makes some really good stuff priced similarly to Under Armour if you're looking for top performance. I personally order ColdPruf items online for 'generic' everyday use because of the price... and Polartec under IonGear mid layers when it's stupid cold and windy. The wool is nice, but I find that it can develop a kinda funky smell after time and multiple washings. Not a b.o. smell, but just a hint of something like you think maybe a wet dog ran by somewhere upwind, but your not sure when or where.

I don't have any experience with warm weather gear that doesn't involve beer, koozies for said beer, cheap shorts and/or an equally cheap Tshirt with the optional Vibrams that my wife says makes me look like a hippie douchebag. /shrug


Smartwool makes some of the best functional clothing on the planet, and by far the best baselayers.  They're expensive as shiat, but worth every penny.  It's the only fabric that actually keeps you warm in cold weather and also relatively cool in warm weather.  And they make magical socks that somehow manage not to smell bad even after 2 or 3 consecutive days of wear.
2014-03-01 09:51:21 PM  
1 votes:
    
Phins: 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 ar ...

pdieten: This is where the expression "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink" becomes relevant....
I don't see how you review any artistic performance (and we can disagree as to whether Jason Aldean is "art" - I don't appreciate his act, but the point is that he was there to put on a show for his fans) and just have an opinion about it without bothering to consider whether the artist accomplished the goal he set out to fulfill. As a reviewer, you don't have to like the goal. In fact you're free to hate the goal. But if you're going to expect to be paid as a professional reviewer, you ought to be able to set your own preferences aside and consider the intent of the show. That's how you bring value as as professional reviewer. To just hate it without any consideration as to its intended context makes the opinion worthless. If you can't even set aside your own personal preferences, then why should anyone give up good money to hear your opinion instead of anyone else's?
 

pdieten: Phins: 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 ...


pdieten: This is where the expression "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink" becomes relevant....
I don't see how you review any artistic performance (and we can disagree as to whether Jason Aldean is "art" - I don't appreciate his act, but the point is that he was there to put on a show for his fans) and just have an opinion about it without bothering to consider whether the artist accomplished the goal he set out to fulfill. As a reviewer, you don't have to like the goal. In fact you're free to hate the goal. But if you're going to expect to be paid as a professional reviewer, you ought to be able to set your own preferences aside and consider the intent of the show. That's how you bring value as as professional reviewer. To just hate it without any consideration as to its intended context makes the opinion worthless. If you can't even set aside your own personal preferences, then why should anyone give up good money to hear your opinion instead of anyone else's?


You're speaking absolute nonsense. No where in the job description of a reviewer is anything about "the intent of the show" or "the goal of the show." I've never, ever heard anyone even talk about such a thing in the context of a review.

The reviewer's job description is pretty simple: give his/her opinion of the show. That's it. If you thought the show was awful, you write about how awful it was. If you thought it was, you write about how good it was. Being a reviewer means that you get paid to give your opinion. There's no requirement or expectation to "set your own preferences aside" or develop psychic powers to determine "the intent of the show."

I'm sorry you like this performer and didn't like the review. But that doesn't change the fact that the reviewer did his job properly.
2014-03-01 08:03:15 PM  
1 votes:

brimed03: 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.

Any recommended, not-overpriced alternatives in your experience?

/asking seriously


ColdPruf and Carhardtt are lower priced alternatives. The best is probably Polartec, but Odlo or Smartwool makes some really good stuff priced similarly to Under Armour if you're looking for top performance. I personally order ColdPruf items online for 'generic' everyday use because of the price... and Polartec under IonGear mid layers when it's stupid cold and windy. The wool is nice, but I find that it can develop a kinda funky smell after time and multiple washings. Not a b.o. smell, but just a hint of something like you think maybe a wet dog ran by somewhere upwind, but your not sure when or where.

I don't have any experience with warm weather gear that doesn't involve beer, koozies for said beer, cheap shorts and/or an equally cheap Tshirt with the optional Vibrams that my wife says makes me look like a hippie douchebag. /shrug
2014-03-01 01:42:04 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:35:16 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:02:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:42:36 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:37:37 PM  
1 votes:
"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 12:34:13 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:16:56 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:16:39 PM  
1 votes:
media.tumblr.com

... said the Corporations
2014-03-01 12:03:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:59:09 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:52:58 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:50:41 AM  
1 votes:
Who?
2014-03-01 11:46:30 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:46:25 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:48:43 AM  
1 votes:
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."
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

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