Only one navel left to gaze at?
March 29, 2001 8:30 PM Subscribe
And if they get rid of Sydney Flacco again, I'm going to be really pissed.
posted by aaron at 9:23 PM on March 29, 2001
One can speak generally about media conglomerates and corrupt journalists - i'm sure it happens every day - but when naming names one needs something more than baseless skepicism.
posted by holloway at 3:38 AM on March 30, 2001
posted by jfuller at 11:02 AM on March 30, 2001
posted by luke at 2:14 PM on March 30, 2001
posted by owillis at 1:52 PM on April 2, 2001
posted by ParisParamus at 2:04 PM on April 2, 2001
'Cause I am one. I can filter out any political BS they might print while still getting my fix. Besides, Inside wasn't about journalism, it was just about commercial media. And I'm a card-carrying media junkie. Brill's Content was journalism-focused, but it was the only publication out there able that questioned the media without doing it in that annoying ivory-tower navel-gazing way so long practiced by CJR and AJR.
Also, what's the ego-deal with the owner's name being in the title?
Trademark issues. He was just going to call it Content, but right before launch they discovered there was already a magazine out there by that name.
I like On the Media, though it tilts more often than it ought to.
posted by aaron at 3:24 PM on April 2, 2001
posted by ParisParamus at 9:28 PM on April 2, 2001
> in the title.
Exactly. He could have avoided both trademark infringement and giving that unattractive media-infatuated-with-itself impression by calling it, oh, Lobster Pot Content. But nooooooo...
posted by jfuller at 11:28 AM on April 3, 2001
« Older Confidentiality. | Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Until they're bought by one of the huge megaglomerates.
posted by anildash at 9:22 PM on March 29, 2001