[ad_1]
VSSome corners of the Internet that many of us did not even realize were up to 48 hours earlier were eagerly awaiting a 7,000-word long talk against Caroline Calloway, an influential C-list ". "Influencing", of course, is the modern and fun way to describe an unemployed person with an Instagram account.
It turns out that the only scandal in history is that the cup, the online female branching of the so-called austere New York Magazine, published such an article at all.
The play, written by Natalie Beach, Calloway's former friend, is more of a screed than a real story. Beach spent about 3,000 words explaining how she helped Calloway write captions on her growing Instagram account. Beach helped Calloway finally find a book proposal on his fairly typical adventures. A further 3,000 words are dedicated to the merger fed by Adderall of Calloway, who ends up killing his book contract and thus, their friendship. There are about 1,000 other words strewn in the beach, lamenting that she can not make an appointment and whining that Calloway is prettier than she, and I quote, "was wearing cashmere sweaters without bra ".
It turns out that Calloway is a woman who used an Oxford degree to devote herself all her life to an Instagram account containing pictures of her rather mundane travels and superficial information about the art and l & # 39; history. Knowing this, nothing that Beach says is surprising. Calloway seems to be both engrossed and passionate in the Beach movie, and it seems obvious from the outset that Calloway is the kind of girl with whom you hit the club, and that you do not believe in someone worthy of trust to be trustworthy, not to mention a business partner.
But being a hot mess for addicts is not a crime, and this is certainly not a public interest issue, even though Calloway has a modest clientele. Beach can be thought victim here, but victim of what? This is not yet clear.
You can assume that this is going to be a privilege abuse story, etc., but the more you read, the more you realize that the central theme is the jealousy of the author. Beach and the cup are the aggressors. You can expect someone who has based all his identity and financial security on a seemingly dysfunctional "influencer" to be petty and vindictive. It's horrible the cup would be complicit in such success.
My old friend is actually nil, and here are some personal details about his addiction and his suicide. It's not a good premise for a story. This sets a precedent that any personal complaint, no matter how minor, about a semi-public character is a fair game for the media.
We recently saw this when babe.net posted a hit on Aziz Ansari.
The cup This article was only a natural extension of Ansari's. Both protagonists could hide behind the veil of privacy (and in babe.net case, literal anonymity). And both described a behavior that may have been rude or even nasty, but that was of little concern to the public.
Under this standard of journalism, anyone with an online signature or social media could wake up one day to find an essay of several thousand words in a major magazine complaining that this person was naughty in high school or that she was standing on a given date.
Responsible journalism companies should stop publishing articles that constitute personal grievances.
[ad_2]
Source link