Check it out. In my case, he means he tough-loves me. Dave Horsey to me:
Regina, I still love you, even though your comments about me are preposterous.
This post – Dave Horsey derides his former (fired) PI colleagues – remains big in journalism circles, although most of the discussion is not on this blog. But good responses continue to trickle in, from the irritated (Emily White, whom I think might have intended to respond to this post, which referred to her PI tenure) to the amused (Casey Corr).
White was at the PI for (roughly) a hard half-a-year. Corr was on the staff when I showed up in the early 1980s, put in close to a decade and moved on. Point is, Corr and I (and Horsey) go way back.
Corr:
To readers of (Another) Bouncing Ball: I’m going to slip this comment in weeks
after the original posting in the hopes that only readers but not
Regina Hackett see itFirst, I sat next to Regina Hackett
back at the old P-I on Wall Street (where the Globe spun for a reason)
and not once did she say she found me brilliant. So that sets me apart
from Emily White. Regina never even called me semi-smart.Second, Dave
Horsey’s tactic of telling a critic that he loves her is the first
thing he learned on the (University of Washington’s) Daily, back when he and other Dolly
Parton-style big hairs were chasing Charles Odegaard trying to slip out
the back door of the Administration Building at the University of
Washington.In fact, Horsey yelled “I love you” to Odegaard in a
shameless effort to get an exclusive. It worked. Odegaard stopped and
thus Horsey gained his first Pulitzer.As for Horsey saying he loves
Regina Hackett, I can only say, get in line, pal. I loved sitting near
Hackett so much that when I turned coat and went to the Seattle Times,
I graciously allowed Regina to have my old phone number, 448-8332.
(That number now rings into a dictation machine that transcribes
comments into a blog called 8332.)Later, I tried to get Dave to join
me at the Times but he had an understandable concern about the chilly
water that flowed in the veins of the editorial-page editor of that
era. Finally, if ArtsJournal decides to throw a fancy party for its
advertisers, I’m quite willing to give the speech and celebrate the
shock of the new, or the new new thing, or the value of hits or eye
balls, or whatever puts digital journalism on the cutting edge of
cutting costs as the mass medium turns mini, along with the pay checks.Have tux, will travel. Casey Corr
P.S. If by chance, this posting is a
duplicate, I apologize. I got an error message when I tried to post the
first version and lost my draft. The blogging world has its cruelties.
I think Emily White responded to the post she meant to respond to. Re-read the thread. I’m afraid I started it when I compared Dave Horsey’s apparent cluelessness about the nature of the Internet to an equally clueless quote from White’s article in City Arts magazine. To which you responded “Thinking is not Emily White’s strong point.” I’ve never met Emily White, so all I have to go on is how she represents herself in writing, which is (at least in this case) darn near impossible not to want to have a little fun with.
Regina, I’m sure you’ve been told this before: you tend to shoot from the hip and ask questions later. Most of the time your instincts are good, but sometimes you end up having to revise your position in the face of new information. Contrary to what our former president “The Decider” believes, I think this is a sign of maturity, not weakness.
I keep bringing up that Emily White article because I think she needs to be taken to task in this specific case for pontificating about something she has (by her own admission!) clearly not taken the time to understand. She might otherwise be a very thoughtful writer and editor, but what good is that if you’re unwilling to take criticism and learn from your mistakes?
Emily. You’re right as usual. I wasn’t thinking of the comments. R
Sheesh! (That’s a cartoon word.) Why am I getting such grief from Emily Pothast for merely pointing out that 95 percent of the blogs ever created have gone dormant and suggesting, therefore, that, for most people, blogging one’s way to a steady income is a bit of an illusion. How does that make me clueless about the nature of the internet? Rather, I think, it is a description of one reality of the internet. It is a Darwinian world online and only the fittest survive.
I understand that now that you pointed it out, but I didn’t get that from the cartoon when I first saw it. I thought the cartoon was about there being a dearth of an audience for blogs, which simply isn’t true. The 95 percent thing is a valid point, but it’s not a function of the medium itself; it’s a function of the low bar to entry. How many of those 95 percent are started by people with limited talent, no practice writing regularly and no potential audience? Many of them, probably, and that’s what (hopefully) puts the blogs begun by your former P-I colleagues in a different category.
That said, now that I understand what you intended to communicate, I do not see any indication that you specifically meant to antagonize them with that cartoon (though it may have hit close to home for some). Regina thinks it is in poor taste; I’m not particularly offended by it but can see how it could be taken as a dig in the context she described.
So I do apologize for using the word “clueless” when at worst the cartoon could be described as “insensitive.” My choice of words, in that case, pertained to the Emily White article more than the cartoon.
Well played, Ms. Pothast! Just to clarify, it was also his avidly admiring comments about the online PI that got me.