Something Requisitely Witty and Urbane

How, exactly, is the blog column proof that the Times or the msm is out of touch? It's a column, in the first-person, clearly the opinion of the writer, and it's in the Style section, where most readers know to expect unusual, feature, or weekend-type stories every Sunday. The woman read her nanny's blog -- doesn't that mean she knows what's up with such things? -- and then fired her because of what was on it. That decision was unenlightend, I'll grant, but why should the Times and, by extension, all the msm be faulted for including it? Your link to the nanny's blog redeems everything the Times columnist wrote; all the entries are still in there, and readers now can go back and see for themselves, well, yes, she was doing posts about drankin' and screwin' and whatnot. How did the Times defame her? The nanny wrote all that stuff herself!

All you've proven by criticising the Times is that it's still a powerful medium and that blogging is impotent. If the article can really ruin this nanny's life The Times seems like its far more relevant than a blog ever could be

Hi Ron and Sarah, thanks for the comments.

I agree that the Times is still a powerful medium. I think that's why I'm so upset that they'd be so willing to play as fast and loose with the truth as they have.

If you go read the Nanny's blog, you'll find that the way Mrs. Olen portrayed her in her column is no where near the way she portrayed herself on her blog. Because someone mentions a sexual encounter on her blog doesn't make her a sexual deviant or slut.

And yes, it isn't the front page of the Times or the Op-Ed page that carried this, but the style section... I realize that. But it is troublesome when a media entity such as the times is so unwilling to correct themselves when, upon protest by the subject of the piece herself and upon refutation of many of the points made by Mrs. Olen, they were unwilling to make changes.

For instance, one post about a sexual encounter does not warrant one being branded as promiscuous.

The blogs are not here to replace the main stream media, but the Times has been woefully behind the curve in understanding that the blogs have the ability to do some things that they cannot. When attacking someone, they have the ability to fight back in a very public way, and that is what has happened here. This article appeared, to me, to be partly influenced by the fear the mainstream media feels about blogs. The problem is, they shouldn't fear anything unless they aren't doing their job correctly in the first place.

Ron, I really recommend reading the posts Dylan links to from Amanda and Bitch, especially Bitch. The nanny blog posts that Olen wrote about don't in fact support her interpretation of things; they do support,I think, Bitch's and Amanda's assesment of Olen. I think the NY Times, like other "old media" outlets, probably does have a bug up its butt about blogs. For one thing, the blogs have lit a fire under the old guards' ass. And there's lots of snobbery about what makes a journalist, and a "who do these people think they are". And I see a bit of a backlash fomenting here and there.

My guess, though, is that the NYT saw this a juicy catfight.

Since you said you're not a lawyer, I just wanted to weigh in because I am -- and although I don't know NY law, she probably does have a very good case for defamation. The key would probably be whether readers would know who Tess was if she hadn't responded to the article, but I think anyone who found out that her last job was as a nanny for Helaine Olen would put two and two together. I certainly hope she sues the NYT!

Unbelievable!

That's why I had to start a second blog, my mom had hijacked the first one. I swear she was leaving comments on each and every post. I still keep it going but I only update with superfilous posts censored for her tastes.

i don't completely agree with you.All you've proven by criticizing the Times is that it's still a powerful medium and that blogging is impotent. If the article can really ruin this nanny's life The Times seems like its far more relevant than a blog ever could be