If you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything

Enter spur of the moment rant:

I came across an interesting piece on the soon to be released movie “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.”  I’m not so much interested in the movie, although I’m sure it will be a blockbuster.  I read the book and disliked it for various reasons, all of them related to what I perceived to be the author’s intention (right or wrong) and the manner in which he chose to weave this tale/series of gratituous violence. 

What prompted this weblog entry is that a magazine I have always loved — the New Yorker — chose to toss its integrity out of the window.  One of its critics agreed to honor an embargo that prohibited all attendees from writing about the movie before December 13th in exchange for an early view of the flick.  The critic gave his word, saw the movie, ran back to the publication where apparently they wrung their editorial hands about whether or not their honor meant anything, decided it didn’t matter one iota, broke their word, and ran the review yesterday.  Because, gosh…they really just had no other choice.  Gosh. 

As one reader out of a blah-zillion for the publication (oh since words don’t mean anything let’s make up everything), I’m really disappointed.  I always valued the New Yorker not only for its wonderful wit and words but more importantly for its WORD.  I trusted that this publication had integrity, that it wasn’t filled with what appear to be drive-through buzz addicts who would do or say anything to get what they wanted.  But apparently its place among the tabloids at the grocery checkout line is appropriate.  Who knew.  I never would have guessed it until now.  

I don’t plan to read the review of the movie, but it’s easy enough to find online if you’re interested.  (Or in your latest delivered issue if you have things like hard copies any more.  I still do.  I like the feel of paper between my fingers.)  The more compelling read to me, however, is the fall of the New Yorker, tripping stumbling pratfalling all over its sense of “conditiontal” or “revisitionist” integrity and ethics.  You’ll find an account of this here on The Wrap.  I’m not usually moved either way by Hollywood, but I agree with the movie’s producer that what the New Yorker did is “deeply lousy and immoral.”  I realize this could all be a publicity stunt coordinated on both sides (in this age of Authentic, if that’s not enough irony for you.)  But that doesn’t change my view of it.  What it does change is what had been an inclination to renew my subscription, which won’t hurt them one iota.  But at least I won’t have to pay for the displeasure of their hypocrisy.

Exit spur of the moment rant.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s