Read your comment over at 3leggeddog and had to come over and see what you thought about the *ahem* article. You are absolutley right to point out that most of us enjoy your writing and that's why we come back. I think the good professor is kind of an asshat (to employ an overly used word) anyway.

Yes, it's the writing and the daily doses of Smittenness that brings me back...well, that and your rack, but I won't mention that since the "asshat" (I love Alex!) may misquote me and it'll end up that I paid for your rack or some stupid crap like that. :-)

Excellent rebuttal, by the way.

Deb, couldn't agree more with you, however, I do find the google ads for NYT on the same page kind of ironic.

neither of you came off looking bad. out of place, maybe. but like you said, that's on them. the board unanimously advises that you stick the article in a file marked 'press,' write a Modern Love column for the Times, and get back to telling us about paris!

I dunno, I think a much more interesting story angle would have been to focus on the fact that blogs have, by necessity and design, a particular viewpoint, and that when multiple blogs write about the same event, it can seem like they're writing about completely different events.

As for Washingtonienne's boyfriends, it seems to me that the best way to avoid having the fact that you're schtupping a Hill intern in the butt (according to Wonkette, the technical term is "assfucking") behind your wife's back splashed all over the internet is to not schtup (up the butt or otherwise) a Hill intern in the first place.

But I digress.

Deb, I don't really get what upset you about the article. You seem to be saying you were misquoted, but even given that, nothing in the article seems to me like something that would provoke any reaction beyond mild irritation. My impression was that this was just a fluff pop culture piece featuring a slightly out-of-it old-style newspaperman's bemusement at those crazy kids and their blogs. It's not really about privacy, it's about the intersection of blogging and real life, which is an interesting topic (granted, one not all that well handled by Rosen). Where you fit in appears to be as an example of the rather rare occurence of two bloggers dating, and how you handle the overlap of relationship & blog.

Why the strong reaction?

I'd be interested to discover what the reporter himself thinks (but know better than to think he'll sound off, in these comments or anywhere else).

I've got three years (I'd claim almost four, but for the best of reasons 2004's been a really lousy year for me) of consistent blogging (of varying, and always verbose) quality under my belt, and my basic guidelines are as follows:

1. Without candor, I'm pissing to windward.

2. If I don't want people to know, I don't write about it.

3. If I want to keep my friends, I don't blog about them.

4. If my blogging friends want to keep me, they don't blog about me.

Points 3 and 4 obviously have latitude when it comes to specific events - if I attend a show with a blogger, for example, I'd be surprised if they didn't blog about it. And if I did something laugh-worthy (like getting tipsy, etc.) I'd figure I had it coming and take my lickin' like a man.

Such is life.

Also, you ask us why we visit... I say I show up for all of the reasons you listed on which you follow through. (Gossip? Nope, haven't found any.)

It's fun here, sometimes.

ej - The thing is, I understand that at face value the piece is pointless, and I shouldn't let it get to me, but, well - I'm not good at that when it involves me. And Alex. I flipped my lid because the specific things that I cited as not accurate are still in the article, as well others that are in fact fabrications to fit his hypothesis. It's infuriating. Especially from a man who claims to have journalistic integrity on his side.

Unfortunately for Mr. Rosen, the only way to sell an article about privacy and blogging is to wrap it in sensationalist sex. It seems that mainstream media is getting skittish and wants to relegate blogs to the checkout aisle, far from the lofty reachs of "professional journalism".

Why visit? Because you're a great writer and you make me laugh. Simple enough. Keep up the great work.

i was excited to see your name/'story' in the article, because, like, hey, how often are people with whom you've stood outside on a stoop smoking cigarettes in the freezing ass cold mentioned in a NYTmag article?! i'd be upset, too, though, because in being inaccurate, the author goes against not only the (often questionable) ethics of journalism, but also against the spirit of what your blog stands for, which is honesty sans sensation, sometimes in it's barest, most awkward and most definitely human forms. i also couldn't figure out if it was an article about legal issues, sex blogging, dating via blogs or political scandals. i also couldn't figure out why one of the other bloggers he wrote about was mentioned at all, considering their scant posts and low-popularity. ultimately, no harm was done, though, and you have the last laugh, because long after mr. rosen's article has been relegated to the pay-per-view archives, your whole lovely site will still be here, day to day, in all its clever charm. glad you got the rant out. rants are important.

Hey..I just discovered your blog thanks in large part due to the NY Times article from today. Perhaps you were misquoted, but I'm happy that I discovered such a cool site as this!

And here I thought Jeff Rosen was merely a jackass for taking up over an hour of my {cellphone!} time and giving me NO mention {as I've thus far heard.} Punkass.

Deb,

I love your blog, and I think you are fabulous. I think it takes a lot of guts to put yourself and your experiences and emotions out there the way you do (and the way many bloggers do - however I must say you do it with amusement and enthusiasm and little if no pretension or arrogance).

But, I digress. Your blog and your legitimacy as a writer are quite frankly IMHO mutually exclusive which you're both very talented at. So in the case of your recent entry, I would almost make reference to that quote that goes something like, "...the lady doth protest too much..."

From what I could see in the article in The Times, the guy was really talking about different types of blogs and how different bloggers approach the on/off record issue. I don't think he was judging you or painting you in a bad light.

...then again, I only know what you tell here. It's (always been) fairly obvious that you don't tell the *whole* story, in fairness to your own and other's privacy.

congrats on being recognized as an influential member of the blogging community. I imagine it would be fun to be recognized in a national paper that is so highly regarded all over the country.

Ari - The first thing we said was where's Ari? Didn't he talk to Ari, too? But then I realized he probably couldn't get any dirt on you, so you didn't make the cut.

jenn, sassy, matt, etc. - Thank you.

As your attorney, I advise you to take a hit out of the little hip flask and one more for good luck.

I just discovered your blog a week or two ago and have kept coming back since because I thought it was one of the most cute and cleverly written journals I had come across in a long time. No idea I was supposed to be looking for juicy gossip or sordid sex tales.

Eh. Who really cares as long as you're not depicted as child molesters who shop for bad music at Wal-Mart wearing sweatpants and a raincoat?

Danica's comment says it all -- any publicity is good publicity. Use it. Abuse it. Booze it. The more "professional" exposure you get, the more people are going to insult you and misunderstand you along the way; it's just part of the game. No offense, but if I were you, I'd be more worried about making sure new readers had something really interesting to see on the front page than I would about *complaining* that I'm fortunate enough to have been featured in the world's most famous newspaper. (Good call on not running the whole anger-venting article, by the way. That's why I always keep paper journals around, you see. When you want to cathartically scribble something down in anger, better to put it on paper first -- that way, you still get the benefits of blowing off steam, without the risk that you will click "send" or "publish" and regret it later. If you come up with something good while you're scribbling, you can always type it into the compy later.)

I'm jealous of the whole thing, quite frankly. The best I could do was donate $30 to get my name featured in the Mozilla Firefox ad last Tuesday.

Congratulations.

Illegitimi Non Carborundum!

I second SantaDad - seriously Deb, I was reading this yesterday in a cafe and wondering how stuff like this gets published in NYTimes of all places. And yes, we all read your blog because we like your writing, in fact, I mentioned your blog to a friend of mine over dinner in a discussion as to why I read certain blogs with regularity - good writing, plain and simple. So please, blog on.

i definitely come here for your style. the article certainly got a bit off topic.

Not usually one to come out as so negative, but, honestly, i keep reading because your sense of enormous self importance is so fascinating. i can't blame you, i guess, since you have so many readers to check every day to read about you, but...

oh.my.god.

you.are.famous.

i seriously did not know this.

But as regards the NYT (and I speak from some experience)

1. Nobody who blogs, reads blogs or knows what a blog is will read an article about same in a dead tree publication. The "aren't blogs amusing and informative?" angle has majorly jumped the shark. Big time.

2. I did not read the NYT article for reasons stated in #1 until you pointed to it.

3. My biggest complaint with the article is that they run under the mistaken assumption that good writing doesn't matter. Or pictures of the Seine, which are nice as well.

4. But on the upside, you know what they say about publicity.. just make sure they spell your name (or moniker) right. Keep checking e-mail for that note from Random House that's bound to come.

5. Oh, and ask for a mess of money in advance. You were profiled in the NYT for heaven's sake.

f.

Never commented before, but feel prompted:

as a Washingtonian, let me emphasize the HUGE difference between Wonkette-like sites and yours. The sites are generally gossipy and trite, good for a laugh if they've lampooned someone pretty well, but nothing noteworthy when it comes to style. I've enjoyed reading your site for quite a while because you are funny and relate stories in a great way, not to mention I like to identify with other twenty-somethings in this mad world. Keep up the good work!

Eh. I don't mean to be dismissive, but I didn't even see the comment about editors & "professional reputation" as a dig. He's just saying that certain names wouldn't going to get published by the NYT for fear of libel suits and/or pissing off someone who's ass you're going to have to kiss later. Which really isn't something to be too proud of, is it?

The bottom line is that the very premise of comparing blogs to newspapers is absurd. It's just reactionary panic on the part of journalists who fear they're going to be replaced by a sexier cousin. But they're two completely different media and can't be measured by the same standards. It's "video killed the radio star" all over again.

Take the publicity and run, Deb.

Thanks for all the feedback!

I just needed to vent it all out, I'm sure you understand, it's like Anger Mgmt 101. Fresh, juicy content coming soon, as promised.

i read you for the name dropping and sex.

aha aha ha ah aha ha ha ah a

Tracy and Hepburn? Guess you've hit the big time. ;-)

Lets forget the frickin article and focus on whats important...

[Edited. Sorry Snowkatz. Had to do it! -deb]

Hey, don't complain. You got your site address mentioned (only those google happy folk have been able to find mine. Google loves me today.) You know what they say about publicity . . . it's, um, public and stuff.

Really, I'm sorry you were so upset by the article. I think the point he wanted to make was how blogging effects personal relationships, but what he pitched was about journalistic responsibility . . . the two didn't twain too well.

Congrats to you and Alex on the engagement.

I just want to tell you that for the sake of bloggers everywhere, I am so glad you didn't say "gag."

Having been on both sides of the press- at one point as an aspiring journalist, at another the subject of a national newstory filled with misinformation- i can appreciate where you're coming from, but i also understand a little where the author is coming from. Most of the interviewing and whatnot that you do as a journalist doesn't make it to print but it does serve to educate you about the subject.

Honestly, i think he painted you guys in decent light and am a little puzzled at why you're worried about his lack of focus of you as individuals.

And also, i interpreted his claim that most blogs are about sex as sex in the way that Sex & the City was about sex- in the broader sense, in the way that dating and romance are about sex. So it didn't bother me. And besides my blog is primarily about sex (in the broader sense.)

I was misquoted, and at times facts were actually invented to suit his theories. That's NOT journalism.

Again, I promised to just post once about it and then put it behind me, when there are (clearly) more lovely things to fuss over. Just this one relapse. Promise.