Urbanum Tremendum et Fascinans
espiritismo, gentrification, kabbalah, kardec, mysticism, religion, spiritualism, Williamsburg
@Lapin Agile: Oh snap.
And thank you, Samyu. You have said it best of all the commentary I have ever read in all the media venues covering "new Brooklyn":
"why don't YOU go out and take a look at the 'real' Brooklyn? you know, people of color, people who can't afford college, or food, or rent. people who don't speak english, people who have come here from places far away and work 18-hour days and send all their money home to another place.
cause you don't have any interest in poor people who can't afford $7 chocolate bars and $15 cocktails. And neither do your advertisers."
Yes. And sigh. Oh, SIGH.
I echo these other commenters in relishing Ms. Iversen's [and the L Magazine's] hypocrisy. Ms. Iversen's indignation is ostensible. In fact, she is irked that not all mass media is immediately and explicitly sycophant towards "hipster buzzwords made flesh." Let's make no mistake--Mr. Alford's article is hardly critical though quite comedic of hipsters, Williamsburg or gentrification. Such is the state of things that the tone of such an article constitutes "trolling" by the NY Times. It reminds me of that article by Goldson for the WG News, "We're All Hipsters," that claims, ludicrously, that mass media is somehow arrayed in full against "hipsters." Meanwhile, he is writing from a media organ created, owned and operated by "hipsters," like Ms. Iversen here--and yet there is no lack of projection.
Ms. Iversen needs do her homework: the NY Times did not recently discover or jump on the bandwagon or is late on gentrification in Williamsburg. WRONG. The NY Times was quite possibly the FIRST MASS MEDIA organ to solicit, forget 'discovering,' gentrification in Williamsburg, writing about "artists" and housing in Williamsburg as far back as 1983. It did not recently "begin" reporting on Williamsburg. In the past thirty years of gentrification in Williamsburg, the NY Times' Real Estate section has written MULTIPLE articles on Williamsburg in EACH decade, and respondents have each time attempted to mock the NY Times' reporting. All the while the mocking is inferior than the quality of the writing it mocks. So that other commenter talking about "envy" and being "so 2000" is more comedic than anything Alford can caricature. That commenter, like Iversen, is SO 1983.
Given that we're all "not surprised" again.
Also telling, if you ask a reasonable person, that tunaboy draws attention to L Magazine's publicity and advertising policies towards favorable media coverage--WHICH IS DOUCHEBAGGISHNESS. The amorality of agents of gentrification is sickening. You think the Internet is killing media? It's douchebaggishness like the suggestion L Magazine should watch out, because, hey, Roberta's advertises t/here, and since they do, let's reject all decency and reason. I'm not saying that L Magazine is doing it, or even that tunafish is hinting it [though we've all had our fill of irony these days], but it sure is telling. If indeed tunabag is recommending such a course of action, then maybe s/he should be reminded of signore once claiming on a thread that there exists a physical wall between advertising and editorial over at Gothamist, as if that actually blocks anything. ha!
And more education comes by way of Goldman-Sachs, recently christened "the hipster bank":
All Comments »
© 2013 The L Magazine
Website powered by Foundation