CelebrityLike.com - Celebrity News 24/7 » Tags » Stanley

Feeds

85841 items (0 unread) in 24 feeds

• A Socialite's Life
• Buzz Foto
• CELEBRITY SMACK!
• Celebrity-Gossip.net
• Celebslam.com
• Cele|bitchy
• cityrag
• Damnimcute.com
• Derek Hail
• Dlisted
• ecorazzi.com
• Egotastic!
• Gawker
• Glitterati
• Hollywood Backwash
• Hot Momma Gossip
• PerezHilton.com
• Popoholic
• Seriously? OMG! WTF?
• The Bastardly
• The Blemish
• The Evil Beet
• TMZ.com
• X17 Online

10 items tagged "Stanley"

Related tags: Alessandra [+], Alexandra [+]

Gawker

• 

  Bill O'Reilly on 'Alessandra Stanely' [Alessandra Stanley]

  Posted: October 29th, 2008, 10:40am CDT by Pareene

  Tags:  Alessandra Stanley  

  This is a really subtle joke, right, Fox production team? Or is it just our birthday? [CityFile, Related]

  
  
• 

  What is Gossip Girl's Big Secret? [Gossip Girl]

  Posted: May 18th, 2008, 1:17pm CDT by ian spiegelman

  Tags:  Alessandra Stanley  

  The Times' Alessandra Stanley weighs in on the frightening phenomenon: “'Gossip Girl' goes further than most shows in depicting the excesses of the rich and under-age (in this fantasy teenagers are never carded), but most of all it represents the next evolutionary stage of girl power television after 'Sex and the City.' That pioneering HBO series, and the movie version that comes out later this month, celebrates girlish women who joined forces — 'Us against the world'— in the pursuit of success and happiness."

  “'Gossip Girl' focuses on worldly little girls who join forces against one another. The series, along with such like-minded shows as the MTV semireality show 'The Hills' and a cautionary senior edition, 'The Real Housewives of New York City,' are focused on friends, and most of all on frenemies. They are so postfemininist that they circle back not just to 'Mean Girls,' but to the pre-Friedan era of Clare Boothe Luce and Rona Jaffe.

  "There is even a nod to Edith Wharton. Serena’s mother is named Lily, and she is engaged to a billionaire named Bart, a sly reference to Lily Bart, the heroine of 'The House of Mirth,' who is socially ruined by, among others, her manipulative BFF Bertha Dorset." [NYT]

  
  

  

  
• 

  Why The Times Should Abandon The News-Opinion Divide [Newspapers]

  Posted: May 7th, 2008, 4:22pm CDT by Nick Denton

  Tags:  Alexandra Stanley  

  When Microsoft's bid for Yahoo fell through, hotshot reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin produced a scathing analysis of the deal-making skills of the Redmond software giant's boss, Steve Ballmer. 'Microsoft has tried to spin its reversal as a show of “discipline” and “self-control.” But what it really shows — painfully — is Mr. Ballmer’s indecisiveness about this deal.' Ouch! And fun! But you won't find Bill Keller and his fellow editors boasting about Sorkin's punchiness: because they're still in denial about the blurring of news and opinion, and so much else.

  31-year-old Sorkin, part of a new generation of Times reporters, has been permitted opinion before. "Mr. Murdoch may be the perfect publisher of The Wall Street Journal." Let's take another example: Alessandra Stanley's front page indictment of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's troublesome pastor. Stanley’s review called Wright “the compelling but slightly wacky uncle who unsettles strangers but really just craves attention... [Wright] doesn’t hate America, he loves the sound of his own voice."

  Sorkin's slam on Ballmer is a sign of a livelier Gray Lady. The challenge from web news sites, the threat of layoffs—and now competition from Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal—have lifted the metabolism of the newspaper in a way that the exhortations of earlier executive editors never could. An intelligent or provocative slant is one way that a newspaper can differentiate its story from the thousand other rehashes of the same information. British hyper-competitive newspapers have made an art of such spin; as America's media becomes more competitive, outlets are following Fleet Street's example.

  It's not only the news pages that are livelier. The Times' City Room blog led the pack in covering the sudden death of movie star Heath Ledger: they were quick with the breaking news, information from the scene and background on the Dark Knight actor's bouts of depression. During the Eliot Spitzer scandal, the paper's website broke the first pictures of the governor's call-girl, Ashley Alexandra Dupré. And the newspaper's opinion writers like Frank Rich have led a devastating intellectual charge against George Bush and the Republican administration.

  So what's the problem? All this messy modernity compromises the Times' prissy self-image. The newspaper's proprietors and editors are obviously moderate liberals, and the conservative columnists are either watered-down or compromised, as token as the useless liberals allowed to whine on Fox News—but the Times can't acknowledge that it's partisan. On the web, the Times has opted for speed and sensation, passing on a false detail that Ledger's apartment was owned by Mary-Kate Olsen—but the newspaper still maintains it applies the same standards of accuracy as in print. (It's still scarred by the fabrications of Jayson Blair, five years ago.)

  Most painful of all to behold is the editors' contorted defense of an outmoded notion of objectivity. Here's the summary, it's fine for opinion to be expressed on the opinion pages, and in columns on the news pages, but only so long as those columns are written by designated columnists and not by multitasking reporters, who are only allowed to express "points of view" and not opinions, as if there were any way to distinguish between the two.

  The mandate of columnists in the news pages “is fundamentally analytical,” executive editor Bill Keller told the paper's public editor. “They may have a point of view on an issue, but they are not partisan or ideological. They don’t endorse candidates. They don’t prescribe outcomes. ... They are free to express opinions of a certain type that grow out of a particular expertise and a body of reporting.” His deputy, Jill Abramson, was equally opaque when defending Alessandra Stanley's put-down of the attention-craving Reverend Wright. On May 4, in another column by the public editor, Abramson was quoted saying, “She had a lot of interesting things to say that didn’t go over the news-opinion divide." (So how interesting would one have to be to go over that line?)

  You know what? Screw the news-opinion divide. When the Times was still pure, reporters would simply trot out some tame expert to give the story the slant they planned; it's less convoluted—and wordy—for writers like Sorkin and Stanley simply to express their own views. Readers can get raw information from wire services and press releases; the only value the Times can add is time-saving summarization—and attitude.

  The Times is the closet-case of newspapers. Everybody knows that the political bent is liberal; that the newspaper's reporters have opinions; and that they're hungry for a juicy story, even if the rush to publish can introduce mistakes. None of these are crimes; they only become embarrassments because of the paper's official position. Bill Keller needs simply to come to terms with the nature of modern newspapers. He and his colleagues will feel so much lighter if they do.

  
  

  

  
• 

  President Honors Veteran In Game Show Format [Do Not Want]

  Posted: April 22nd, 2008, 4:31am CDT by Ryan Tate

  Tags:  Alessandra Stanley  

  If you were wondering why everyone running for president was talking like a wrestler yesterday instead of retaining some semblance of dignity, you'll be happy to find out the candidates were merely practicing for a new presidential tradition begun by George W. Bush: Appearing on a TV game show and cracking jokes. That might sound a little cheesy, but it was for a good cause. The president, you see, wanted to honor an Iraq veteran with the sort of dignity only host Howie Mandel can conjure on Deal Or No Deal. "Are you ready to get some acknowledgement for your hard work and bravery?" Mandel asked. Oh, sure, what the hell:

  Why can't Bush or any of his would-be successors just act like a president instead of trying to be funny? Because they have to prove they are not "elitist," Alessanda Stanley wrote in the Times:

  Elitism is to the 2008 campaign as communism was to 1950s politics: a career-breaker. And pop TV is the antidote, a free platform to rub shoulders with viewers who only glancingly pay attention to the news. Making nice on a cooking program or game show is the macropopulist equivalent of knocking down pins in a bowling alley in Altoona, Pa., or belting down Crown Royal whiskey in a bar in Crown Point, Ind., only better: the setting, be it Rachael Ray’s kitchen or Howie Mandel’s array of suitcases on “Deal or No Deal,” is as familiar as home to millions of viewers. None of the presidential candidates want to be seen as snooty or overeducated, which must be why on Monday, all three provided taped greetings to wrestling fans watching “WWE Raw” on the USA network.

  This is, of course, the mediocrity-celebrating, "I-just-want-a-president-I-could-have-a-beer-with" attitude that got Bush elected eight years ago and that voters were supposed to be totally over.

  
  

  

  
• 

  Maybe People Shouldn't Quit the 'Times' Just Because We Hate Them? [Counterpoint]

  Posted: April 16th, 2008, 2:18pm CDT by Pareene

  Tags:  Alessandra Stanley  

  An anonymous journo writes, regarding our all-in-fun poll:

  I sort of think the joke doesn't work with Alex Kuczynski given that she's no longer on staff and hasn't been for a loooooong time. Deborah Solomon is obviously a contract writer with the magazine, not a member of the union. Hence neither of them belong in your poll. And Amanda Hesser did quit, already. A couple of weeks ago. Anyway, I don't mean ot be all high and mighty about it, but it just seems to me that in general, if you are going to be merciless cunts, it would help to know what you're talking about.

  It's true, that does help. We blame the readers who submitted those names and our unwillingness to do any research! More, touching on Gawker punching-bag Alessandra Stanley, after the jump.

  And regarding Alessandra Stanley, and the post from yesterday... She is exactly the kind of Times writer Gawker ought to be championing, and instead you guys have been relentlessly kicking the shit out of her for three years, for every correction she ever gets, for her style, writing today that she should be forced to take a buyout...Obviously, she gets too many corrections, but she churns out (sometimes) as many as five columns a week, and is funny and irreverent not in the maer roshan sense of the word, but in the real sense of the word...Are you guys jealous? Did you just arbitrarily decide to be malicious to her? I totally get it with useless Bill Carter but with her, I find it totally mystifying.
  
  Just saying.

  Good points all, except for the lame (five columns a week! presumably written while dodging sniper fire?) defense of Alessandra Stanley, who clearly just hates her job. Kelefa Sanneh has never, to our knowledge, accidentally mentioned the hit single "Totally Out-There" from hiphop duo Charles Barkley. Maybe the architecture critic accidentally mistakes perforated parapets for plain ones every week but we're not a nation of architects, we're a nation of television viewers, and we notice when someone calls it "All About Raymond."

  We freely own up to malicious cuntiness, though.

  
  

  

  
• 

  How Many Corrections Does It Take To Get Fired At The 'Times'? [Alessandra Stanley]

  Posted: March 5th, 2008, 10:20am CST by harlan

  Tags:  Alessandra Stanley  

  At this point, New York Times star television critic Alessandra Stanley has all the credibility of a Wikipedia entry. Most of the information is probably right, but you shouldn't take anything as gospel because you never know what's real and what's just been invented by a bored 13 year-old in Iowa. Alessandra Stanley Correction Watch has gone from an evergreen subject to an old joke. Geraldo had to threaten to sue the Times to get them to correct something Stanley invented out of thin air. As a service to the human resources department at the New York Times, after the jump, we present the best (worst?) Alessandra Stanley mistakes since the last time we rounded them all up.

  • Today's article, which claims that the Iraq war began in 2002, not 2003.
  • Structuring an argument around the erroneous point that MSNBC calls itself "the best political team" on television, when in fact CNN makes that hubristic distinction.
  • Falsely asserting that Charles Gibson has reported solely from New York, prompting a letter from ABC News Senior Vice President to Romenesko.
  • Claiming that the Pulitzer Prize committee still sends telegrams to alert winners three months after Western Union stopped sending telegrams.
  • Making the correction box twice in a single day for two different articles in 2006.
  • Correction round-up of 2005, which includes referring to the then-most popular sitcom on television, Everybody Loves Raymond as as "All About Raymond."