Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/t...-broadway.html
The NYT mentions the past contro, but not with a cite. The special does go way the hell out a few times. I think part of his armor is he already walked away- "what, you're going to run me out of show biz? Fuck that. People don't want me, I'll go again."
|
If the
Times' piece predates
Vice's, all is well in the universe, as it's a case of
Vice stealing/glomming on/plagiarizing (and creepily crediting itself rather than citing the
Times). If
Vice piece predates the
Times, we're potentially left to wonder if maybe the
Times is following "new media's" lead. The latter is a really depressing possibility.
But there is precedent for it. I can't stand the
Times' graphics. They're trying to imitate the graphics of exclusively online sources. And it's so fucking irritating. I was trying to delve into some of the 1619 stuff and the initial link is all this huge print and photos and after a few minutes of searching, you feel like screaming, channeling an inner Lewis Black, "Just give me the fucking text! Just the fucking text! You're a fucking newspaper, goddammit! I want to read motherfucking words!!!!"
