Jun

30

31 Comments

  1. seriously  

    this is the most vague post ever. why should i know janice min? when was the blue pencil dinner? WHO IS PARIS?

  2. brian pan

    blue pencil dinner--invites to spectator/publishers on campus..

    i dont find anything about paris hilton to be interesting.

    and true. this post really sucked

    • whom?

      publishers on campus? try spec and maybe a few "publishers" of other publications who happen to also be a part of Spec...

      • brian pan  

        agreed. columbia does not have many students publishing periodicals outside of the spec's embrace.

        but a few groups do have published periodicals. they put out titles like:

        the columbia magazine
        the columbia college/engineering alumni magazine
        a few philosophy journals
        jester
        the fed
        political review
        journal of politics and society (helvidius)
        etc.

  3. looks like

    somone is lacking anything interesting to post

  4. true american hero

    god bless us weekly for taking a hard stance for the journalistic credibility of all shitty celebrity tabloid rags everywhere

  5. OMG

    I f*cking love Janice Min. She is a total goddess!!

    Rock on, Jan! WHooo

  6. hi i'm bwog  

    i expect you to know what i'm talking about and if you don't lol on you because you are dumb so go look it up and validate my awesomeness

  7. Really?  

    The editor of a trashy tabloid is bwogs hero?

  8. analogy?

    Praising US Weekly for not doing Paris Hilton stories anymore is like reminding people that at least Hitler was kind to animals.

  9. feh

    Min's piece is a poorly-written and poorly-argued. Us Weekly does a great deal of obfuscating to make itself seem the moral superior of the cheaper tabloids (most notably In Touch Weekly and Life & Style) to which it is losing ground. See: http://gawker.com/news/lies/us-weeklys-brand-is-truth-257733.php

    Min's argument doesn't unravel so much as reveal itself as false from the piece's opening sentences: the "100% Paris Free" stamp would hardly have come about if the magazine had obtained the Paris cover story, for which it had bid (Min's revelation of the Hilton camp's demands for money should have been left unstated if she truly believes her audience does not want Paris gossip.)

    The entire maneuver, and this Slate article, strikes one less as "taking a stand against" anything than trying to justify their loss of a scoop. Us Weekly creates its own reality - because the magazine consistently loses Angelina Jolie scoops to People, it villainizes the Oscar winner. http://defamer.com/hollywood/angelina-jolie/bitter-weeklies-hitting-jolies-kids-where-they-live-while-shes-busy-working-249972.php

    And because the heiress superstar that Us Weekly, in part, created has snubbed Us Weekly, Min is forced to come up with a tortured explication of Us Weekly's ever-increasing irrelevancy. This begins to raise the question of why we should honor a woman who is in the business of trafficking meaningless, stupid, distracting, often extremely destructive gossip, while vilifying the monster she has created. One begins to think that the attitude fostered by certain members of Columbia's publishing community, that any position in publishing is equally relevant and unbelievably important, falls short in dealing with and may indeed have contributed to Min's outrageous sense of entitlement and constant spinning of her failings as an editor.

    And that Bush comparison Min creates out of whole cloth in her Slate piece? Yeah, it makes no fucking sense. If Bwog can't have a "hero" who has created something more meaningful than "Stars: They're Just Like Us!", could it at least honor an alumnus with the capacity for rational thought?

  10. ***

    *Min's piece is poorly-written and poorly-argued.

    Oops.

  11. Wow

    Janice Min was guest of honor for Spec? Looks like we're really lowering our standards if we consider trash like Us Weekly to be a credible source of journalism. Columbia College Today had her on the cover a year ago though, so I guess others must be doing the same.

    Hey, she's kinda cute though.

    • standards?  

      since when was the spec a beacon of journalistic virtue? Us weekly is right down the spec's alley.

      And all you bwog haters, just click the fucking links!

  12. bwarghhhh

    US Weekly owes loads of its sales to Paris Hilton. I'm not impressed at all by Janice Min.

  13. janice min

    is a disgrace to her columbia education. $160,000 and four years of great ideas flushed down the tabloid toilet.

    • most of you

      are or will be disgraces to your columbia educations.

      • Ashamed

        When I first looked at this post, I thought that Parismania was in reference to either a foreign country attacking an innocent one or a terrorist network that received government funding. I thought, Oh hey this is cool, Spec got a pretty good reporter that took an apparently risky stance against a powerful network of evil-doers. How wrong I was. Cool deception, Bwog. Real cool.

      • No you won't

        Idiotic leftist protesters, and Che-shirt-wearing, upper middle-class wannabe Marxists are a disgrace to their Columbia education, and to the university as a whole. The protesters of '68 were the prime example of those who have soiled the hallowed name of Alma Mater.

        Janice Min, while heading a magazine known only for producing gossip and circulating Hollywood rumor, has at least been successful at her job. She may not be an i-banker, award-winning author or playwright, or a diplomat, but she at least does what she does well. And hey, SOMEBODY'S got to keep teenage and college-age girls focused on celebrity gossip.

        • YUPP

          Calm down, KKKulawik.

          • Oh give me a break

            I'm not Chris Kulawik, and I'm not in the college Republicans or conservatives either. Hell, I don't even consider myself a Republican. I do know Kulawik though, and he's really not that conservative; he's more libertarian. He just does stupid shit to give his organization attention on campus that is otherwise taken up by the college Dems. If you ask me however, by doing what he's doing, he's only giving the Republican Party a bad name, further hardening false precepts about the party that many ultra-liberal students already have. And to call him a racist only illuminates your ignorance more.

            But I stand by my remark that the '68 protesters were disgraceful. They dealt a 20-year blow to Columbia's prestige. The fact that several people exonerate them as "freedom fighters" is not just ignorant, but truly absurd. Were it not for '68, perhaps the public (and a bunch of high schoolers) would see the top colleges as HYPC, with Columbia joining the Big Three of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Remember, through most of the 20th Century Harvard and Columbia were the top research universities in America. The protesters only served to damage Columbia's reputation.

          • YUPP

            Yeah, but because of the protests The Grateful Dead played on the Ferris terrace. So, that's that.

            http://www.columbia.edu/acis/history/68-dead.html

  14. really though  

    i-bankers aren't much better in terms of making columbia proud. i've never met a greedier, more self-indulged group of people in my life. what the hell kind of change are YOU making in this world?

  15. But

    Back to the main point- Janice Min is utterly self-serving and phony. Right? RIGHT?

  16. yeah

    But were they invited to the Blue Pencil dinner?

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.