From the Phatom Observer: Mallick Misplaces Marbles While Masticating Misery
First, I…should take off my… pants and put… on a bathrobe.
I sure would like to have been working in Heather’s office this week. I can imagine this new employee coming in with doughnuts every day, all perky and dressed in outfits to top any office gossip conversations.
The second week might be different if this first(?) article for the Star represents her future contributions. “Why did they hire this middle-aged emo-writer?”, may be going through a few heads on Monday morning.
The personal focus of this piece is understandable; she wants to introduce herself to the readers. The logic though is quirky at best. She pouts that as a freelance author, she led a “warm bath” life, but was lonely, spending her time online shopping. Though not a blogger, she feels her online life exposed her to angry half-dressed men. Her low point occurs when she sees an old one-night-stand giving a press conference on the internet and her subsequent embarrassment. What? Given what she has devulged of her mental state, I think that she would have run out of the room if she had been there in person. To summarize her argument, she wants to work in an office setting alongside likeminded people who can protect her from the theoretical world filled with masochists out to kill her.
Now, in no way do I condone death threats, but I also have a big problem with how they are referenced in this article. Heather Mallick ascribes the hate mail she receives from men to the fact that she is a woman who writes, not because of what she writes:
http://www.heathermallick.ca/guardian.co.uk-columns/curses-canada.html
You can find more past columns on her website.
That said, it’s back to the laptop…
AlinEdm as The Obtuse Observer
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
Gardner makes capital error when dropping penny
Dan Gardner lost it, a penny that is, this past month. Don't worry though because I'm giving him another for my thoughts.
In a news/opinion article, depending on the newspaper, Mr. Gardner reported this past month on the reaction of Prime Minister Harper after being told of Graham James' pardon by a CP reporter asking for a comment. Given Gardner's initial summary of events surrounding the parole board reviews, and Dan's description of Graham as "the most notorious sex offender in the country", an in depth story should have followed.
How obtuse of me to think so. For Dan Gardner, this subject is the perfect opportunity to smear Harper: "He's the love child of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush".
What a cheap shot for Dan. About as cheap as the penny Dan writes about when the revelation occurs to him. Though, or because, he characterizes Harper as "barking orders" and "apparently" not knowing about Stockwell Day's review, Dan states, "these details are not what made the penny drop for me." He says, "(i)t was the handling of the whole issue that did it". Instead of clarifying what and when Harper knew of the details, or constructing an argument about Harper's handling of the parole board reviews, Gardner thinks to "(c)ombine Nixon's personality with Bush's decision-making style and you have Canada's prime minister", and an article to make a dime on.
It's not worth a dropped penny. To dismiss the Graham James pardon story as a decision from a "fairly minor administrative tool" in order to insult Stephen Harper with Nixon and Bush comparisons is worthless journalism. It makes me wonder, "is it really so hard to believe that people can, with lots of luck and bravado, soar far above their level of competence?" (see Gardner, Dan)
In a news/opinion article, depending on the newspaper, Mr. Gardner reported this past month on the reaction of Prime Minister Harper after being told of Graham James' pardon by a CP reporter asking for a comment. Given Gardner's initial summary of events surrounding the parole board reviews, and Dan's description of Graham as "the most notorious sex offender in the country", an in depth story should have followed.
How obtuse of me to think so. For Dan Gardner, this subject is the perfect opportunity to smear Harper: "He's the love child of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush".
What a cheap shot for Dan. About as cheap as the penny Dan writes about when the revelation occurs to him. Though, or because, he characterizes Harper as "barking orders" and "apparently" not knowing about Stockwell Day's review, Dan states, "these details are not what made the penny drop for me." He says, "(i)t was the handling of the whole issue that did it". Instead of clarifying what and when Harper knew of the details, or constructing an argument about Harper's handling of the parole board reviews, Gardner thinks to "(c)ombine Nixon's personality with Bush's decision-making style and you have Canada's prime minister", and an article to make a dime on.
It's not worth a dropped penny. To dismiss the Graham James pardon story as a decision from a "fairly minor administrative tool" in order to insult Stephen Harper with Nixon and Bush comparisons is worthless journalism. It makes me wonder, "is it really so hard to believe that people can, with lots of luck and bravado, soar far above their level of competence?" (see Gardner, Dan)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
