Tuesday, March 29, 2005


For those of you interested in the developing story of journalistic integrity and credibility and its existence or lack thereof within the blogosphere, Slate editor Jack Shafer, who routinely reports on the blogging phenomenon for the magazine, has published a tough-talking rebuttal to yesterday’s Los Angeles Times column by media reporter and critic David Shaw. Shafer takes on Shaw’s “1,300 gassy words” and generalizations about the intentions and failings of bloggers. He also effectively calls the critic on the carpet for lumping Matt Drudge and impenetrable “Dear Diary”-type bloggers in with those who are working hard to build reputations for reliability and thoroughness, to be taken seriously as journalists, and who take advantage of the technology’s ability to correct the kinds of mistakes and oversights that take much longer to acknowledge and fix in TV and print media, if they’re acknowledged or fixed at all. It’s a fascinating read and a convincing response to Shaw’s rather paranoid piece, and there are additional links on the page to Slate articles by Shafer and others about blogging.


Also in Slate this week is a nice write-up on Sandra Oh, which emerges from a rather withering review of her new ABC series Grey’s Anatomy.

Regular readers of this blog won’t be shocked by the news that she’s emerged of late as one of my favorite actresses, and therefore I’m somewhat ashamed to admit that I fogged out and missed the show’s premiere last Sunday night. Liz Penn, writing on Slate as Dana Stevens, gives the show middling marks, writing off at least the first episode as an uninspired E.R.-Sex and the City hybrid. However, Stevens says that Oh’s “delightfully bilious” characterization rises to the top and away from the wreckage of the rest of the show and that she’ll hopefully be able to parlay her experience here into better roles in films and, perhaps, even another TV show that might better showcase her abilities. I don’t know about Grey’s Anatomy (yet), but I’m in favor of anything that gets this terrifically sexy and funny actress in front of a camera.


As a follow-up to my breathless, albeit somewhat speculative reportage last week (sorry, Mr. Shaw), there’s been a definite release date posted by Anchor Bay DVD for both Race with the Devil and Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry. It’s June 28, 2005, so mark your calendars.


Finally, the response to Mr. Hand’s Spring 2005 Pop Movie Pop Quiz has been very gratifying and a whole lot of fun. When I got into the task of compiling my own list a couple of days ago I realized just how NOT EASY the whole undertaking really was, so I appreciate even more the time and efforts of everyone who has responded so far. I’m still looking for more lists, if I can get ‘em, and when I do I’ll compile another list of the best responses and create a brand-new post for everyone to see. Homework was never this fun, was it?


blaaagh said...

You are out of control with this Sandra Oh thing, and must be stopped!

Dennis Cozzalio said...

The server for this site has been acting very weird, slow and unpredictable all day. So imagine my horror when I got as far as posting the picture, and then I couldn't get back on to post the actual article until about four hours later. So here's this picture of Sandra Oh just sitting on the blog all afternoon, with no text surrounding it, no explanation. I'm sure "this Sandra Oh thing" REALLY looked weird then!
I will post a picture of Jack Elam next, just to prove that I am not catering to beauty exclusively.

blaaagh said...

Haha! That's better: equal opportunity for the less-beautiful. Actually, my "must be stopped" comment was re-submitted, after I had tried to post it earlier today in response to your posting the picture of the admittedly lovely Ms. Oh--twice! But the blog demons wouldn't let me post it then. I guess it looks a little less obsessive now. I'll call off the intervention.


Anonymous said...

Hey, Dennis.

Regarding the first part of your latest blog... I find myself siding with David Shaw. Both his piece and Jack Schafer's piece are paranoid to some extent, and I can't say that Shaw makes more sense (and I felt that Schafer was pretty defensive as well as obnoxious in tone), but Shaw does raise questions that I have been thinking about myself. In fact, just the other day, Dwight Chuman and I had a conversation about some of the same issues.

For me the basic question would be, who would set the criteria for bloggers who wish to move from, shall we say, amateur status to something more professional, formal, serious-- I don't know, pick a word.

It's a complicated issue, and at this point, I'd rather have everything stay the same as it has been and see that everyone pull together to get all of the bugs worked out. What's the rush?

Remember, the future is where you and I will spend the rest of our lives. Let's play nice, keep our hands to ourselves and have fun.


Dwight Chuman said...

UTTER CLAPTRAP! I never spoke with you on this or any other subject, "Andy," and you know it. Blogging: it used to be called masturbation.