It’ something that our little friend Gary Miller could stand to learn a little more about. He wrote an asinine opinion column for NYU’s student newspaper, the Washington Square News, about how “girls” who go to clubs are stupid whores. I responded; he had something of a hissy fit in the comments (“Are you pretending your blog is the be-all and end-all of public discourse? Does it even get enough hits for an Alexa ranking?”); he inexplicably brought up Paris Hilton to strengthen his case; and he finally defended the column on the grounds that it initiated discussion — which, as I said in the other post, isn’t exactly a hallmark of fine journalism (the New York Post cover that photoshopped weasel heads on UN members also generated a lot of discussion; hopefully I don’t need to explain why it wasn’t exactly a high point in journalistic history).
And the fun didn’t stop there. Gawker nominated Gary for their weekly Great Moments in Journalism contest; Gary is so special that he won.
You’d think that after being publicly outed as a fool and as an embarassment to NYU and to the Washington Square News, Gary would have tucked his tail between his legs and laid low for a while. But it would appear that the word “humility” isn’t in Gary’s (admittedly limited) vocabularly. No, Gary feels that, after being strung up as a certifiable moron in front of hundreds of thousands of people, it’s probably best to respond by essentially saying, “But blogs are stupid.”
And good God it is glorious.
My last column made a lot of people angry. A blogger at Feministe.us named me “Asshole of the Week” and Gawker.com derided me with its weekly award for “Great Moments in Journalism.” It was a lot of negative publicity for a lowly college columnist. But I accepted it graciously, given the sources.
Gawker is promoted as “a mix of pop culture and media gossip,” offering articles like “No One Buys ‘Marie Claire,’ Possibly Because It Sucks” (Nov. 17), so forgive me if I don’t consider them the premier authority on proper journalism.
Right. How does a blog that’s entirely about media have anything to say about journalism?
The ordeal was made all the more embarrassing after I learned about the rigorous blogger certification process. You see, in order to become a blogger, you must first submit a request to God, via e-mail. If chosen, you’ll receive a reply within three days and a printable certificate. It will say: “Congratulations! Since you are a superior being, you may now begin writing daily judgmental diatribes about inferior mortals. And since you’re a natural-born critic, don’t worry, it won’t be necessary to include objective evidence in your arguments. You couldn’t possibly be wrong about anything. Keep up the good work at making Earth better!”
I think this is supposed to be funny, but given that it doesn’t make so much sense, I can’t bring myself to even crack a smile — my face is too twisted in a condescending brow-raised smirk. Because God said it’s ok. Or something.
I disagree with the way God selects bloggers. And I don’t think blogs should be taken too seriously, unless they provide reasonable evidence for any claims made. For example, if a blogger wishes to criticize a columnist’s opinion that women trade dignity for attention in nightclubs, it would be reasonable to cite a survey of female clubgoers that assesses their true motives. It would be unreasonable to claim that the columnist is bitter because the pretty girls wouldn’t date him in high school.
Let’s play a little game: It’s called “Words Gary Miller Uses Incorrectly.” Our first nomination: “Reasonably.”
rea‧son‧a‧ble /ˈrizənəbəl, ˈriznə-/
Pronunciation[ree-zuh-nuh-buhl, reez-nuh-]
1. agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical: a reasonable choice for chairman.
2. not exceeding the limit prescribed by reason; not excessive: reasonable terms.
3. moderate, esp. in price; not expensive: The coat was reasonable but not cheap.
4. endowed with reason.
5. capable of rational behavior, decision, etc.
Indeed, Gary’s evaluation of what is and is not “reasonable” makes little to no sense. If a writer bases his arguments on the premise that all “girls” who go to clubs have no dignity but are too stupid to know that they have no dignity, then it’s perfectly reasonable to point out that his reasoning is flawed. Which, if he actually read my post, is pretty much what I did, paragraph by paragraph — pointing out that all kinds of people like loud music, that adult women don’t need some college dude telling them how valuable (or value-less) they are as human beings, that adult women are rational decision-makers who generally know exactly what they’re doing, that it’s insanely stupid to make vast generalizations about slutty chicks fucking dudes at clubs and then crying for the next week because why didn’t he call?, that his entire column is a showpiece of misogyny, that “girls” who go to clubs are actual human beings and that these “girls” do actually have some degree of agency, and that people (like Gary) who dedicate so much time and energy to attacking a certain class of women probably have a bigger bone to pick with those women than just being irritated by their club-going, which ostensibly has absolutely no impact on his life.
Apparently, I should have just cited a survey.
This suggestion is so depressingly idiotic that I’m not even sure how to respond. First of all, surveys are pretty inadequate when it comes to addressing someone’s “true motives,” so Gary loses on that one — especially when the entire point of his original column is that “girls” are too stupid or deluded to know what they’re doing when they go to clubs. Second, citing a survey isn’t the greatest way of proving that something is unequivocally true. Sure, it can boost an argument, but it’s hardly a requirement when you’re making an obscenely obvious point. Gary also seems to be missing the whole point of a certain type of blogging, and of media criticism in general. The point is to pick things apart. You know, to criticize. To point out bias, idiocy, and occassionally highlight the good. Surveys aren’t an integral part of that, although they can sometimes be relevant. Of course, bloggers do a lot more than that, but it’s a substantial piece of what you’ll find on many political and media blogs. Most bloggers aren’t journalists, even if they take the title. I’ve certainly never positioned myself as an investigative journalist who goes out and takes or references surveys every time I think someone is a moron. I’m happy to simply point out their myriad moronic ways.
That’s not a legitimate form of criticism; it’s just immature. The difference between opinion writing and criticism is objectivity. Criticism must be objective and justifiable to be credible.
Back to our little game. First, “Legitimate.”
le‧git‧i‧mate /adj., n. lɪˈdʒɪtəmɪt; v. lɪˈdʒɪtəˌmeɪt/
Spelled Pronunciation[adj., n. li-jit-uh-mit; v. li-jit-uh-meyt]
Pronunciation adjective, verb, -mat‧ed, -mat‧ing, noun
–adjective
1. according to law; lawful: the property’s legitimate owner.
2. in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards.
3. born in wedlock or of legally married parents: legitimate children.
4. in accordance with the laws of reasoning; logically inferable; logical: a legitimate conclusion.
5. resting on or ruling by the principle of hereditary right: a legitimate sovereign.
6. not spurious or unjustified; genuine: It was a legitimate complaint.
7. of the normal or regular type or kind.
8. Theater. of or pertaining to professionally produced stage plays, as distinguished from burlesque, vaudeville, television, motion pictures, etc.: an actor in the legitimate theater.
Given that I didn’t break any laws and that I’m pretty sure I didn’t do anything in my post that differs from generally-held standards and principles of criticism (note to Gary: read up before you respond), I’m not sure how my very pointed and specific criticisms were illegitimate. If my whole post had been “Gary has a small penis,” then I could understand how it would lack legitimacy. Lucky for us, it was a little bit longer than that.
But let’s move on to our next word: “Objectivity.”
ob‧jec‧tiv‧i‧ty /ˌɒbdʒɪkˈtɪvɪti, -dʒɛk-/
Pronunciation[ob-jik-tiv-i-tee, -jek-] Pronunciation Key
–noun
1. the state or quality of being objective: He tries to maintain objectivity in his judgment.
2. intentness on objects external to the mind.
3. external reality.
Gary claims that opinion writers are “objective.” Thanks to Facebook, I have discovered that our friend Gary is in fact a journalism major. This deeply worries me, and I have to wonder if Gary simply hasn’t been paying attention in class, or if the J department needs to do a massive overhaul in its curriculum. Objectivity, in a journalistic sense, means trying to present both sides of an issue equally and fairly. Most good journalists recognize that they cannot possibly be unbiased; however, they can try and make their articles as fair and balanced, and they do this largely by trying to separate their own opinions from the article. This is the exact opposite of what opinion writers do. Opinion writers need not present both sides of an issue as if they’re equally valid; they only need to present both sides in order to bolster one and take down the other. Opinion writers who claim to be objective are generally full of shit. And being full of shit is not particularly credible.
As for being justifiable, well, do I need to explain why photoshopping weasel heads on UN members is ridiculous? Does Gawker need to explain why writing things like
You girls are not humans inside a club; you’re commodities, like bottles of vodka, to be sold. And you unknowingly consent to this. A club’s success can hinge on the amount of girls inside. They sell you — you’re why guys pay to get in. To me, this is an extremely backward practice in our progressive country. But this position as a commodity is exactly what you girls crave, isn’t it? It plays right into your insecurities — it gives you a sense of importance and worth that you probably don’t find elsewhere. The truth is that you girls want as much attention as possible, short of becoming prostitutes, right? Don’t worry, Kanye West said it’s okay to be self-conscious.
and then quoting Dane Cook is embarassing? But hell, I did take the time to explain it. And justify it.
I could also question his use of the word “credible” here, but it’s too easy.
Blogs like Gawker claim to have “no pretensions to objectivity,” but they habitually disparage mainstream publications like the Washington Post. That’s fine, but if the writers at Gawker are not pretending to be objective, they shouldn’t pretend their criticisms are the be-all and end-all, let alone even remotely valid.
Again, Gary, we need to work on what we call “logical reasoning skills.” Also, “reading comprehension.” (You aren’t planning on taking the LSAT any time soon, are you? If so, for the love of God, get thee to Kaplan). Lacking objectivity does not make criticism invalid. Here’s an example: Hunter S. Thompson, one of the least objective journalists of all time. Another example: Muckracking (surely, Gary, you covered this in The Media in America). Not objective. Media critics like Eric Alterman, Noam Chomsky, Jay Rosen (also a blogger — does that discount him?), and Cynthia Cotts are not objective. In fact, it doesn’t take objectivity to legitimately criticize publications like the Washington Post, or your column in the Washington Square News. No one is pretending that their criticisms are the be-all end-all to anything — but just because we write them on blogs doesn’t make them invalid (cheatsheet for Gary). “Gary Miller is wrong because Gary has a blog and blogs are stupid” is an invalid criticism. “Gary Miller is wrong because what Gary wrote is demonstrably untrue and logically unsound” is quite valid.
In reality, many bloggers present nothing more than unsubstantiated opinions. So if they think they’re in a position to call something poor journalism — even if it’s a college newspaper column — they had better present some compelling reasons.
As opposed to the incredibly substantiated opinion that girls who go to clubs are slutty, right? Or the substantiated opinion that Gawker is worthless because they have a headline you think is dumb, yeah?
You’re damn right I’m in a position to call something poor journalism. I’m not any sort of superstar journalist, and I’m not going to post my entire resume, but suffice it to say that I’ve written a little bit and I’ve edited a little bit, for a few different publications. I’ve been in the same position as Gary; I’ve been in the position of his editor. I’ve studied journalism. I regularly read print media, and I regularly read media criticism. But that aside, Gary is under the impression that no one presented any compelling reasons for why his column was a stinking turd. Since Gary is obviously lacking in the reading comp department, I’ll outline:
1. How your girlfriend’s sister feels about how you feel about nightclubs is not a colorful anecdote. It is not relevant. No one cares, actually, and there’s absolutely no reason to include it in your piece.
2. Let’s start with the basics: most clubs are either 18- or 21-and-over venues, so we aren’t actually talking about “girls” here but, in fact, adult women. And while the term “girls” is properly infantilizing and therefore fitting given the tone of the column, it’s factually inaccurate.
3. I’m not sure in what alternative universe the Wednesday before Thanksgiving is the biggest party night of the year
4. The fact that some clubs have stupid names does absolutely nothing to support any point you’re attempting to make.
5. People go to clubs to get laid?! Next thing you’re gonna be telling me that people go to the mall to buy shit.
6. Prestige pricing is not, in fact, “the inverse of how prices are supposed to drive a market.” Nor is it in any way unique to clubs.
7. Women are not feeble-minded morons who need other feeble-minded morons who inexplicably have access to a college newspaper column to tell them why they go to clubs.
8. What Kanye West said doesn’t really matter, and definitely doesn’t make any sense here. At all.
9. The idea that all women who go to clubs go there because they’re idiots who have nothing to say is a completley unsubstantiated, depressingly stupid generalization.
10. The argument that loud music attracts morons is a really, really bad one.
11. Calling women “sluts” doesn’t do much for your point.
12. You obviously get most of your information about women from bad teen movies if you think that all “girls” who go to clubs go home with guys and then cry when the guys don’t call. Again, unsubstantiated, generalizing, and idiotic.
13. The fact that men buy women drinks in clubs doesn’t make it any more comparable to a brothel than standard dating does. Or marriage.
How are those for compelling reasons?
There isn’t a hierarchy of journalistic value when it comes to opinions — different publications should offer different, appropriate perspectives. As a 21-year-old undergraduate, I wouldn’t write a column about globalization and expect to be read over Thomas Friedman. WSN isn’t Gawker. Gawker isn’t The New York Times. A feminist blog isn’t WSN. Whatever the content of my columns, they’re aimed at a specific audience — NYU students. And I’d rather create controversy than bore them.
On the internets, we have a word for this: Troll.
But thank you, Gary, for pointing out that this blog isn’t WSN. Thank the sweet Lord for that.
As for creating controversy, there are more options than doing that or boring your audience. You could write something interesting instead of simply inflammatory. You could present a new idea. You could move past “Girls are slutty! Blogs are dumb!” and actually say something that is, as you put it, “legitimate” or “reasonable.”
Tucker Max, New York Times best-selling author of “I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell,” once wrote a column as an undergraduate that claimed all the students at the University of Chicago were ugly. He recently received a $300,000 advance for his second book. Regardless of his paltry subject matter, which has been criticized by countless bloggers, I consider him a very successful writer. His stories and opinions — whether they’re brilliant, idiotic or plain silly — are at least interesting.
This explains so much.
Anyone who considers Tucker Max to be the journalistic ideal — or even a model of a good writer — is probably the same kind of person who thinks that Carrot Top deserves a comedic award for his hilarious AT&T commercials.
It seems that anything that arouses contempt from bloggers is at least interesting. I’m well aware that my college column isn’t going to change the world, but I’ll definitely settle for interesting.
Interesting, huh? I’m not sure that this is the word you’re looking for, as it generally is taken to mean “satisfying of the mind.” Tucker Max may be a lot of things, but he is not particularly mentally engaging. Neither are you. Unless, of course, you mean “interesting” in the way that someone might read your column, smirk, and say, “Well that was… interesting…” as the most generous possible response.
I hope that your editor, or someone higher up than you at WSN, took you aside and had a little talk with you about journalistic ideals. Being “interesting” is important, but it’s not the only aim (and it’s especially sad when the goal is to be interesting, and you fall short of even that). You should actually have something to say. You should write with some integrity. You should be informative, compelling, thought-provoking — not simply provocative.
Because I get the feeling that you haven’t really grasped that concept yet, and that you think writing for Rupert Murdoch would make a perfectly good journalistic career. So when you wrote that you strive to be “interesting,” perhaps you were looking for something more along these lines.
Of course, the final irony is that you do exactly the same thing that you accuse blogs of doing: Criticizing without offering any sort of justification or pretense of objectivity.
For example: Your suggestion that all girls who go to clubs are big fat whores. Objective? Substantiated? Logical? Anywhere approaching a rational thought?
Or, “In reality, many bloggers present nothing more than unsubstantiated opinions.” As compared to your clearly substantiated opinions about women who go to clubs. Tell me, Gary, where did you purchase your skank-o-meter? Because I would love to know how you objectively measure these things.
Or, if you need another example, this entire column, which amounts to “I don’t like blogs because they make fun of me, so I’ll throw out some accusatory words even though I can’t be bothered to look up their actual meaning, and I’ll end up doing the exact same thing that I take such issue with Gawker and Feministe for doing.”
Cuz Gary is brilliant like that. Merry Christmas, kids. Gary Miller is the gift that keeps on giving. And since I wouldn’t want to leave Gary empty-handed, this one is for him:
UPDATE: According to a source that will remain anonymous, Gawker won’t post about Gary’s article because they said a) they were too busy laughing at him and b) they don’t want to encourage him. To quote my source, “it’s bad when gawker thinks you’re too pathetic to harp on.”