Comments on: I guess he doesn’t “get it”

By: Hudge

Hudge — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 01:05:34 +0000

Well, just within a few weeks of my post professing total ignorance of michael graves, I saw an article on that new federal courthouse design. Maybe he should stick to designing http://www.nashvillescene.com/Stories/Columns/Urban_Front/2005/09/22/Federal_Disaster/index.shtml” rel=”nofollow”>blenders….http://www.nashvillescene.com/Stories/Columns/Urban_Front/2005/09/22/Federal_Disaster/index.shtml

By: micawber

micawber — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:47:24 +0000

Note that David Carey has a new post!

By: Hudge

Hudge — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:58:37 +0000

Hmm, I must’ve missed that part of the decade. Never heard of him.

By: rex

rex — Sun, 21 Aug 2005 18:22:14 +0000

I think that was back when they decided to get Michael Graves (who is designing Nashville's new federal courthouse) and others to design lots of stuff that are sold in Target stores.

By: Hudge

Hudge — Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:52:23 +0000

I briefly saw the issue and it didn’t bother me but did puzzle me – when did New Yorker readers become Target’s target demographic?

By: bob

bob — Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:03:12 +0000

Good point about crying wolf, Rex. Heck, hip New Yorker readers are such converts to that particular “church” that they might simply be amused (with a conspiratorial wink-wink) if some of the /articles/ mentioned Target — in such a clearly “sponsored” issue. On the other hand, I’m sure Newsweek readers in ’84 all closed the book thinking Macintosh had brought them Reagan. That explains why no liberal artist-types ever bought a Mac. (Heh.) Or perhaps that’s why Mac owners thought of IBM, then Microsoft, as “the evil empire”?

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:23:52 +0000

I think Lazare is so off base here that it’s almost upsetting. Is the entire New Yorker editorial going to be about Target? Doubtful. Is Target going to be mentioned at all in any editorial? Probably not, frankly. What’s the difference between this and running a television show with one sponsor so you don’t have to have as many commercial breaks? I don’t get the issue here.

By: rex

rex — Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:50:54 +0000

I agree with you Paul. Unfortunately, when pundits like Lazare cry “church-state wolf” over what the New Yorker is doing, it makes them hard to listen to on the “truly disturbing” examples.

By: Paul Conley

Paul Conley — Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:54:27 +0000

There are lots of truly disturbing examples of where the lines between advertising and editorial have blurred.
But the New Yorker/Target campaign isn’t one of them.

By: lcreekmo

lcreekmo — Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:31:25 +0000

I think the Sun-Times is looking for a way to distract from their own troubles this week. What on EARTH does it matter, WHO is advertising? Unless Target execs came and had a sit-down with all the contributors to this issue to explain how great their store is, it has absolutely nothing to do with the edit they’re running.

Now here’s an interesting argument that you MIGHT make, in a post-lucky world: advertising IS edit. In that case, the wall is gone and his column is also irrelevant.