I try to avoid reading Gawker these days because it just depresses me (and sometimes starts an inner snarky dialogue that I don't want or need), but every once in a while I'm tempted to sneak a peek. Apparently they were tired of trashing the usual suspects and innocent bystanders (or yesterday was a slow "news" day) because I saw this: They've gone all Caroline Bingley on Jane Austen. And so has The New York Times, sort of. Admittedly Gawker's post is merely tongue in cheek and I agree with them, "whoever was in possession of the responsibility for putting this [NYT] section together must be in want of a clue."--Kim
April 4, 2007
As Clueless As They Want to Be
I try to avoid reading Gawker these days because it just depresses me (and sometimes starts an inner snarky dialogue that I don't want or need), but every once in a while I'm tempted to sneak a peek. Apparently they were tired of trashing the usual suspects and innocent bystanders (or yesterday was a slow "news" day) because I saw this: They've gone all Caroline Bingley on Jane Austen. And so has The New York Times, sort of. Admittedly Gawker's post is merely tongue in cheek and I agree with them, "whoever was in possession of the responsibility for putting this [NYT] section together must be in want of a clue."--Kim
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So glad you're back. I've missed your posts. Where have you been??? Hurray! RtT is back in session. Now I wouldn't get this excited about just any old thing, mind you. ;-)
ReplyDeleteThanks for the love! We went AWOL temporarily for various reasons: laziness, monumental life happenings, and near-death experiences, believe it or not. There was much semi-swooning and hysterics involved on all accounts. But we're back in the swing. -- amy
ReplyDelete