Things were better before there were facts. — (Anon. Buzzfeed Journalist).
Concerning his critical appraisal of the “spring clean” of Chartres Cathedral: Martin Filler is likely a typical American blowhard (and the French grandees are right to scoff at his claims), but I appreciate his accurate description of Frank Gehry in the The New York Review of Books.
It is axiomatic among architectural editors and art directors that if a building is not very good, then one should use images of it at sundown; if it is worse than that, show it reflected in water at twilight. This perhaps explains why several publications, including Architectural Digest, Vanity Fair, and The New York Times, have depicted Gehry’s newest work in a dim crepuscular glow, rising above its shallow pools and dramatic stepped cascade. Recourse to special photographic lighting does address one of the Fondation Louis Vuitton’s basic shortcomings, however, for in a city where it is overcast much of the time, a glass-skinned structure such as this is bound to look rather dull quite often.
I’m surprised there was ever a market for ghost-written autobiographies.
It would be more apt to characterize the careers of Beyoncé, Gaga, and the like as having achieved a “partial Madonna.” Ms Ciccone is the original.
David Gregory is reportedly out as host of NBC’s Meet the Press program. Mr Gregory’s problem is that he didn’t continue the shopworn, gotcha quote shtick made famous by his predecessor, Tim Russert. Also, Mr Gregory is inept at interviews.
The political pundit sphere is all a-twitter over Hillary Clinton’s criticism of President Obama’s foreign policy. The typical pseudo-conflict narrative has ensued. First, Ms Clinton was said to be “calibrating” away from Obama. Soon, such calibration was breathlessly cast as an open rift. Then unnamed sources were said to state that Ms Clinton wasn’t so vocally critical during her time as Secy of State. All of this makes for a month’s worth of click bait headlines. What is missing, however, is a critical assessment of Ms Clinton’s views on foreign policy. Were they right? Were they likely to work? Regarding Syria, why doesn’t a pundit ask a follow up question: How would Ms Clinton have attained military authorization from a dysfunctional, Tea Party riddled Congress? Could we have some substance occasionally, dear journalists?
According to Gawker, Buzzfeed deleted 4,000+ entries on its Pulitzer Prize winning website. Following so closely on the heels of the dismissal of “BuzzFeedBenny” (for “plagiarism”), it appears that questions of originality remain a problem for the list-making, content aggregator extraordinaire. When will journalism 2.0 types learn that content trumps distribution?