In summary, Weingarten, whose blast against "branding" begot this column, waxed nostalgic about how content used to be driven by more than grabbing eyeballs. He then lamented that online eyeballs seem to have an unquenchable thirst for bacon-strapped cats.
 |
| http://www.scalzi.com/cattapebacon2.jpg |
Petri rebutted, saying journalism used to accommodate lengthy features on conditions in the corn market because, for decades, no one really knew what people were reading. Is it more noble, she asked, to give the reader what we now know he or she wants?
Principles aside, these writers have both proven it's a lot of fun to talk about writing about cats. But isn't all this talk about writing about cats a bit of pussycat journalism, after all? Check out the urbandictionary definition, which describes a cat that “no longer looks under bushes and hides in a tree. It is satisfied with the little effort, and enjoys snoozing whenever it can.”
So please, e-mail my latest cat story to your grandma, and remind her she only gets ten clicks before having to buy a digital subscription. (The CA is now assigning value to one's eyeballs.)
And if you didn't get your fix with the two cats whose lives were saved by a kidney transplant, then check out my coverage of last year's cat show.
<^_ _^>
P.S. Here's a sneak peak inside my cubicle. Not even staged:
No comments:
Post a Comment