Tuesday July 24, 2007
Illustration by Mike Gorman, New Times.
While I was sleeping, last week’s New Times quoted me as saying “Whoever thought this piece of shit up missed the spirit of the originals by a mile, and should be kicked in his patriotic balls.” It accompanies this article by Janine Zeitlin, which defends the new lifeguard stands as cheaper, and opens, “Tourists love ‘em. So say Miami Beach city officials.” Well duh, they haven’t seen the originals. “With art deco, everything goes.” Um, don’t even get me started. People come from all over the world by the millions, as much for the beach as for anything else, and you’re justifying your cheapness while spending lavishly on park overhauls, Washington Ave. “beautification” (as if anybody cares about Washington Ave.), and tax refunds. The lifeguard stands should have been restored or recreated according to the original designs. And Scott Timm should have said so when asked, not begged off because the stands are not technically in the historic district.
Anyway, the quote (“Ript from the blogs,” not in the online version) provides a link to the photo (where the above quote is from). NT also helpfully linked to my Sun-Sentinel website writeup (so did Elad, thanks) and a recent weekend todo. Wow.
Tuesday June 5, 2007
How do I love this? Let me count the ways:
- It’s so true: every time I convince myself I need to splurge and try Karu & Y just to see for myself, I hear another horror story about it.
- Fucking hilarious: I can’t verify the 25-24=1 math, but even if remotely true it’s one for the record books.
- Just plain good: I read most of the best-of issue, and while it’s full of solid, sometime unexpected, choices and good writing, this stands out as particularly insightful. Yet . . .
- Manages to insult the entire city: see, we just don’t have enough “foodie enthusiasts” to enjoy this place’s “cutting-edge cooking style.”
- Exposes a certain meta-ness of the “best of” issue: you know some of their categories are custom-made for someone they just want to shout-out to. This is the best of all possible examples of that phenomena.
- It’s written in a style I can relate to: lots of punctuation, lots of linguistic asides, and lots of numbers.
- Exposes discrepancies between the print edition and the online edition: it’s right there on page 137. But online? No está aquí. Numerous discrepancies between the online and print editions have been spotted, but an entire missing category takes the cake.
Bonus reason: I love the way we get a partial line right before the column break where a weird box juts part of the way into the column (between “cooking” and “style”). Whazzup to my crack New Times layout department, slapping it together and getting it out there! Previously on “Let me count the ways:” What’s up with the Art Miami ad? and What’s up with the Sunguide ads? Also, let me point out that the entire text of the above listing is in the scan’s alt-tag, just to make this legit and accessible.
Wednesday May 30, 2007
I’m not quite sure I’m believing my eyes, but Miami New Times’ best of 2007 is out, and Critical Miami took ‘Best Website’. I guess w00t and thanks are in order. The operant link may be my rant from last year, wherein I embarrassingly whined about not winning the award then, and further complained about the lack of a ‘best blog’ category. But if 54 references aren’t enough, let me spell it out: I love you too, guys. (I’m also glad that NT noticed the commenters here, who’s contributions are just as important as mine for making the site worth visiting. Thanks.)
Monday April 9, 2007
Miami New Times is “a heckuva lot more fun than that boring Herald” — you can be sure it’s true because it says so right on their home page.
Friday March 9, 2007
Wednesday November 22, 2006
If there’s one thing ignore’s good at, it’s handing out a dissing. Last week New Times gave them the opportunity, and they brought their blog out of a month-long hibernation to take NT down a peg:
Hey Jean, why do we keep receiving inquisitive calls from Lara Coppola every time she sees her name (and, more scarily and ethically dubious, misquotes attributed to her by you) in your column? Why does Ms. Coppola think that “we must have talked to you” because, well, she hasn’t? According to Lara, she has never spoken to you. She doesn’t even know who the fuck you are, just like Wikipedia, which recently erased your self-posted entry because you were deemed, we shit you not, “irrelevant.”
We’re guessing someone will soon be calling the big doggies in Colorado…again.
At issue is this article, which, um — borrows — images, and possibly the whole concept, from a months-old ignore feature about Kareem Edouard. Here’s a link to the blog rant, which also includes a swipe at Miami Nights.
Monday September 18, 2006
Four months to the day after making this declaration,
There’s this thing that’s been invented. It’s called “blogging.” All the kids do it. Seriously, though, online journaling is so four years ago, kind of like Oakland Raiders jackets and Nike pool shoes. Stay away.
The Miami New Times eats its words and launches a blog. Predictable enough, but wait . . . what’s this? It’s a column in the regular paper, formatted like a blog. Hmm… are they excerpting the “best” of their blog once a week in the ink version? Nope—those articles don’t appear on the blog. Turns out that “Riptide” is the name of their blog as well as the name of an unrelated weekly(?) column. They also still haven’t quite figured out this linking business: All the links are hidden unless you accidentally hover over them, and the column version never quite links to the blog version (at the end it does link to two particular posts). They also quote White Dade(?!) and list his URL, unlinked). What a mess.
I think this is new, but we are now the honored recipients of City Link. A free weekly put out by the Sun Sentinel, Citylink is now being distributed in Miami. The classifieds prove it to be the regular Broward/Palm Beach edition, but there’s not too much local content in there anyway.
Meanwhile, the Sun Post continues to do interesting work, but their arcane website effectively removes them from the online conversation, since you have to wait a week or after an article is published to get a permanent link to it. Can someone please please have a little fireside chat with whoever’s running things over there?
Thursday June 29, 2006
Wednesday May 17, 2006
I’m writing this drunk, and it’s about silly shit, and life is short, and you’re probably better off skipping this post. Count yourself warned.
Item #1 is this ignore post, wherein our heros (a) make fun of this event for being sponsored by Toyota (“where does it end?” I don’t know, but it ended a long-ass time ago if you’re going to eschew anything with corporate sponsorship, guys. Also, and I really really do love ignore, but you guys using “hipster cunt” as a put-down is kind of like a bulldozer calling a forklift yellow, isn’t it?) and (b) totally go off on Crispin Porter + Bogusky, because they found out that someone at the company left an ignore-insulting comment on Miamity (Kyle is pals with ignore, so he prob. gave them the IP). Also note this, and also that said comment was left under the name “newtimez,” which brings us to . . .
Item #2 So the New Times’ best of issue named a TV station’s web site Best Local Website, which is great, except that (#1: the Associated Press style guide demands that “Web site” is two words, and #2:) the logic that got you to that selection, taken to its obvious logical conclusion, leads you to name herald.com the “Best local Website” every year henceforth. Still no big problem, except that they then say something like “the loozers in Bloward can have a ‘best blog’ category, but we in daD3z know that blogz are, like, sooo 2001; we ain’t even w’dat, yo” (check the link above, in case I’m mis-remembering their quote a little (and also, btw, a belated congrats to Rick, who got the best blog nod in da BPB)), with which I just have the slightest of problems. Blogs, to me, are a format, not so much a cultural entity in and of themselves. In other words, a particular blog can be good or bad, cool or uncool, but to call blogs in general uncool is equivalent to someone in the 1920’s saying that the talkies are a silly fad, or (as I put it here) someone in 1460 saying that books are “so 1455.”
The problem is that NT is supposed to be a “fun” publication, and you can’t possibly be a “fun” weekly without shooting from the hip, and without saying some stupid shit from time to time. The problem is compounded in the case of the “Best of” issue, wherein the staff is required to make up all this shit in all these specific categories, and make it make sense, and be fun to read, and not be the same thing year after year, and, well, who am I to get upset if all those requirements get in the way of not saying stupid shit from time to time. Not to mention the fact, and let’s face it, that that everyone knows what the best blog in MIA is (and let’s face it: the only reason you’ve read this far was to see if I was going to go there, and now you know).
Tuesday May 9, 2006
Our story so far: Bob Norman launched the original Daily Pulp back in January, with a pretty decent splash. Word spread, and by March, the New Times brass took interest, and made him move it to their own domain. So far, so good. Then, on May 3, after months of posting every single weekday, the blog goes dark. Rick, along with most of the journalists in SoFla (who read the blog with some combination of delight and dread) are like, “wtf??” Then, on May 9th (yesterday, to those of you who are following along), a post appears on the Pulp from Tony Ortega, New Times editor, which cryptically begins “Bob’s busy with an investigation, so I thought I’d fill in . . .”
So, yeah, wtf? Well, rumour has it that it’s all about a beef between Bob and the New Times brass. A post (presumably the one intended for May 3) was vetoed by NT Lawyers, resulting in what must have been one of those legendary newsroom arguments. Lawyers and editors tend to win those fights, though, and the post never saw the light of day. So Bob goes off and writes another post, describing the whole incident (and probably using some choice words), and now they won’t let him put that post up, either. Now thoroughly pissed off, Bob stops writing the Pulp. He’s either sick of the whole damned thing, or it’s some sort of a stand-off.
If true, it’s disappointing but not unforeseeable. The New Times plays all punk-rock, but it’s a big national corporation, so it needs its ass covered. Maybe it’s impossible to do a blog like the Pulp under that kind of environment? In any case, if anyone has any other info on the situation, let’s hear it.