NYT Is Hip, Happening, And Now

8 comments October 1st, 2007at 01:00pm Posted by Eli

I assume I’m not the only one who’s noticed that the motto at the top of the NYT’s online homepage now reads, “All the news that’s fit to blog.”


Entry Filed under: Media


  • 1. bill  |  October 1st, 2007 at 3:59 pm

    OT: How about those Giants? Sort of makes me feel a little better about the Redskin loss.

    Back on:
    Does this mean the Times has dirty hippies working in the tech department?

  • 2. Eli  |  October 1st, 2007 at 4:13 pm

    Man, I sure as hell never saw that one coming, although not having Westbrook as a safety valve or Tra Thomas as a protector were probably pretty huge. In theory, the Giants *should* have been able to do that – all four of the guys who ran wild have proven pass-rushing skills, but this is the first time all season that they’ve really shown them.

    And I kinda feel the same way as you do, noticing that the two teams we lost to are 4-0, and rather handily at that.

    But right now I think the Giants are a team that no-one wants to face (I *never* thought I’d be saying that this year), unless they’re running the wishbone.

  • 3. whig  |  October 2nd, 2007 at 3:50 am

    The NY Times has a wicked cool blog master, and the whole NYTimes.com runs on WordPress. It’s a giant blog, really.

  • 4. Karin  |  October 2nd, 2007 at 8:20 am

    No! I totally did not notice that. Thanks for pointing it out.
    But speaking of the Times blogs, do you read Errol Morris’s photography blog there? http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/
    I have been fascinated by him, ever since I saw Les Blank’s movie about Morris’s efforts to complete his first film,
    “Werner Herzog Eats His Shoe”.

  • 5. Eli  |  October 2nd, 2007 at 4:32 pm

    I read most of his latest post, and the first one which you pointed me to.

    It’s interesting, but he kind of frustrates me a little. In the first one (IIRC), he says that context is vitally important to *every* photo, whereas I think context is irrelevant if the primary consideration is aesthetic rather than documentary.

    And in the second one, it frustrated me that neither he nor anyone he talked to noted that there were *more* cannonballs in the ditch in the “ON” shot, which makes the argument that they were taken from the ditch to scatter on the road kind of inexplicable. So either the ON photo was taken after an additional bombardment, or before a salvage gleaning, but I didn’t see any photographic evidence of balls being taken from the ditch to stage the photo. They could have been taken from somewhere off-camera, of course. That would have been the smart thing to do.

  • 6. Karin  |  October 3rd, 2007 at 10:58 am

    So either the ON photo was taken after an additional bombardment, or before a salvage gleaning,
    Those cannonballs are pretty heavy-dragging them from a distance off camera onto the road would be quite a chore, and would take up a good part of the hour & a half he said he spent there-plus the time it took to set up equipment in those days. So I don’t think he had time to fake the “ON” shot. And the letter to his wife only mentions the one ball landing near him that he takes as a souvenir, not a whole bombardment. So I think “ON” photo was before a gleaning. Makes sense to glean them from the road first, and then grab a few extra from the ditch.

  • 7. Eli  |  October 3rd, 2007 at 11:45 am

    Another good point, although I guess it would depend on how many troops he could find who were eager to drag heavy cannonballs all over the place to make his photo look more impressive. I mean, it’s not like they’d want to rest or anything…

  • 8. Karin  |  October 4th, 2007 at 10:52 pm

    We have to stop meeting like this.

Contact Eli



Most Recent Posts




October 2007
« Sep   Nov »

Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter

View My Stats *