Upcoming
November 14
A Christmas Tale
B.O.H.I.C.A.
House of the Sleeping Beauties
How About You
November 21
The Betrayal
November 30
Creeps and Crawls
"A blogger is an ignorant, often times uneducated person. They are a member of a socially disadvantageous class of people. A blogger can soon become a legitimate journalist, but they don't abide by any certain rule of grammar. Being a 'blogger' means you don't get paid. It means being on the same evolutionary backporch step as a fetch-happy dog.
"An internet media journalist is not a blogger, but a blogger can be an internet journalist. I am far too intelligent and well educated to be classified as a blogger." -- from a Movieweb rant by an established guy (I'll leave everyone to guess who) that was up earlier today, but then removed. For me the best thing about it was (a) the fact that I feel the same disdain toward some bloggers and therefore partly agree (but with a bit less vitiriol) and (b) the art. Has Devin Faraci weighed in on this?
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 6, 2008 at 5:32 PM
comment #1
Jay T.
says ...
You know who else is stupid and worse than dirt? Black people and Jews! ;-)
Posted by Jay T.
at October 6, 2008 6:05 PM
comment #2
dangovich
says ...
What does a blogger's pay or lack thereof have to do with anything? The best-paid "journalists" are hacks like Tom Friedman and David Brooks, who never say a word to rock the establishment boat. I would suggest that in this day and age, pay is inversely proportional to journalistic quality.
Posted by dangovich
at October 6, 2008 6:13 PM
comment #3
Zimmergirl
says ...
Yeah really, lol. Being a "journalist" means nothing anymore -- not even at the NY Times. And anyway plenty of bloggers get paid. If they aren't making their own money because of their heavy traffic they're being paid by a mainstream media outlet. Very few out there do it for NO money.
Posted by Zimmergirl
at October 6, 2008 7:12 PM
comment #4
p.Vice
says ...
So this was something that you wrote when you woke up constipated this morning and took down before I had a chance to see it?
Damn.
Posted by p.Vice
at October 6, 2008 7:17 PM
comment #5
Devin Faraci
says ...
Here's the problem with bloggers: they're ill-educated amateurs. They may have some passion but they have no knowledge and they have no writing ability.
Posted by Devin Faraci
at October 6, 2008 8:48 PM
comment #6
DarthCorleone
says ...
Screw this stupid generalization. There are some intelligent bloggers out there who are great writers.
Posted by DarthCorleone
at October 7, 2008 2:22 AM
comment #7
John Campea
says ...
Devin wrote:
"Here's the problem with bloggers: they're ill-educated amateurs. They may have some passion but they have no knowledge and they have no writing ability."
You're right Devin. Only full time website writers know how to make sweeping generalizations. How fortuitous guys like you are here to show us "ill-educated" unwashed masses the way to write properly. Guess all my post-grad work was for nothing.
Posted by John Campea
at October 7, 2008 7:20 AM
comment #8
Devin Faraci
says ...
John, I'm talking about movie knowledge. If your post-graduate work was in film studies I will graciously bow to your superior expertise in film. But too many film bloggers are simply fans and have no depth or breadth of film knowledge. It's nice to really like movies, but I like to get my opinions from people who come from a place of knowledge.
And to be fair, it's not just film bloggers. It's a whole generation. Look at what Variety writer Jeff Sneider has posted here, basically reveling in not having seen/not knowing much about movies made before 1990.
Posted by Devin Faraci
at October 7, 2008 3:29 PM
comment #9
James Rocchi
says ...
Hypothetical question: What's worse, reading someone who lacks a deep and real understanding of film .. or someone who has nothing but a deep and real understanding of film?
Posted by James Rocchi
at October 7, 2008 9:14 PM
comment #10
John Campea
says ...
Hey Devin,
Look man, I constantly say you are the best writer (in the movie sphere) on the web. And I believe that. But, who decides who has "knowledge" and who doesn't?
What is the bar dictating the separation between the "haves" and "have nots"?
You also don't seem to understand what blogging is and is not (some bloggers don't seem to get it either). Your statement seems (correct me if I'm wrong) to indicate that at any rate.
Just be careful about the sweeping generalities. Because purposefully or indirectly, you just said John Campea is an
1) ill-educated Amateur
2) Has no knowledge
3) Has no writing ability
I may not be as good as you, but I am one hell of a communicator, better than most (pauses to pat self on back), pretty damn educated and pretty knowledgeable and there are many bloggers out there who are much better than me.
What's happening here is that you, and some other mainstream movie web guys, are starting to sound like the traditional media guys from a few years ago who were bitching about you.
You are not an elitist snob who is just bitter about the attention and traffic blogs get. So be careful about saying things that make you falsely appear that way.
Criticize bloggers who claim themselves to be "journalists" and debate that idea
Critisize the practice of some bloggers to abuse Digg
Criticize the practice some bloggers (and main stream sites) engage in of stealing content,
But stay away from gross generalities that are neither close to being accurate nor actually convey the point you're making. Just a thought.
Posted by John Campea
at October 8, 2008 9:50 AM
Post a comment