I think pieces like that work if it's a regular feature, where readers are really interested in reading "the adventures of Edith". But as a single piece, it's so much more about her than him, it's really off-putting. And bad journalism, according to the old rules.
Mal ,'War Stories'
Natter 68: Bork Bork Bork
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
saw this on twitter:
Until Anthony Weiner finds something permanent, he could try being a lesbian blogger.
Hee, LeN.
I saw that article the other day, and thought it was skin-crawlingly awful even for celebrity "journalism." I have no idea if it's typical for GQ, but this suggests it's not unique: [link]
There's no way I'd read a competent interview with Chris Evans, because I don't care. But I looked at that because people were discussing it. So GQ got more attention by publishing something terrible, and I am part of the problem. Damn me.
Well, it's not at all journalism, is one thing.
Kathy - that was the problem with the HMO choices that the state picked: people outside of the Chicago area were not served by those choices.
Any of our esteemed law librarians around? Is there a (free) way to figure out if this guy [link] is the same as, oh, this guy [link]
I, on the other hand, would have liked to read about Mr. Evans. It was incredibly boring. I am not Edith's friend. I have no you go girl response. I don't read groupie stories, as a rule.
Give me a minute and I should be able to figure it out for you, smonster.
You rock, Sparky!