|
 |
NYT CoverageAs the wave of coverage for the new box set winds down, “the gray lady” herself gets into the act.
12 Replies to “NYT Coverage”Commenting at Satellite News
We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide an "Ignore" button ( Comments are closed. |
|
Satellite News is a fan site for the Mystery Science Theater 3000 television and Netflix series. It is an independent publication written and compiled by Chris Cornell (msampo@aol.com) and Brian Henry (erhardt4@aol.com). Satellite of Love, LLC does not maintain this web site, nor is it responsible for this site's content.
All content posted on Satellite News is copyright © 2024 by Chris Cornell and Brian Henry, except where otherwise noted. This Date in MSTory is written and compiled by Steve Finley, Chris Cornell and Brian Henry. Copyright © 2024 All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce This Date in MSTory items in any form without express written permission from the authors. Items of MST3K news may be duplicated or reposted, as long as Satellite News is cited as the source. The views and opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of Satellite of Love, LLC. No warranty is expressed or implied that the information given herein is completely accurate, and in fact this information can and will change at any time. So there. Mystery Science Theater 3000, its characters and situations are copyrights and trademarks of Satellite of Love, LLC. Banner image created by Larry Lee Moniz. |
|
) to help our users cope with "trolls" and other commenters whom they find annoying. Go to our
Cult following? CULT FOLLOWING!? For this insult to MSTies worldwide, Itzkoff must be sacrificed to Gypsy, Goddess of the Satellite of Love!
Oh, wait… :shock:
Actually, this is an okay overview of the show’s history and progeny from a non-fan, non-detractor perspective. My only problem with it is that it’s a little too dry, encyclopedic if you will. It’s almost like Itzkoff is afraid to write what he actually thinks of the show.
Am I the only one who loves the way the New York Times refers to everyone in their articles as Mr. This or Mrs. That? Reading the “old gray lady” is like watching a marathon of Are You Being Served? episodes. This article smells so strongly of artsy fartsyness that you get the feeling that the person writing it is wearing a vanity scarf!
Hats off though to my main hos at the NYT though for finally throwing their 2 cents in!Nice one, Itzkoff!
As a regular NYT reader, I don’t share most of the above posters’ sense of alienation. I’m merely glad to see an article which shows that actual research was done on the subject.
When I saw “gray lady” I thought Sampo meant Nancy Reagan was finally weighing in. (“Ronnie loved it. It’s the last thing he remembered seeing!”) Because, ya know, she was in the news yesterday.
Yeah, a boring puff piece, but I’m glad they got in! :grin:
The article itself was a bit awkward to read, if only because I’m not used seeing them referred to as “Mr. Hodgson”, etc. But building off that, it seems like Itzkoff couldn’t even be bothered learning about the characters of the show – closest he got was Dr. F and Crow, if only because he quoted Trace.
I agree with Steve up there; the article is a bit dry, though kinda interesting since it goes at it from the non-fan angle. Just kinda.
I am old enough to remember when an article in the NYT was a big deal.
To heck w/ old media. To heck I say.
I thaught it was supposed to be a review of the 20th anniversary set? He didn’t say anything about it, just that it existed.
To further preserve traditional marriage in California, there is the development of a new constitutional amendment to ban Mormon marriage during the next election cycle. Mormon marriage is a serious affront to traditional values and God’s plan for man. 1) Most Californians view the Mormon church as a cult; 2) Children are being taught that Mormon marriage is equal to Christian marriage, yet Mormonism has only existed for 150 years; 3) Mormons engaged in polygamy and even defied the United States government’s attempts to stop such behavior; 4) The United States is a Christian nation, and Mormonism is antithetical to Christian values (the 1st Amendment’s Freedom of Religion was designed for Christian religions only); 5) The Mormon church has unfairly used its power and money to influence Californian politics, yet it continues to pay no taxes based on its nonprofit status; 6) The marriage ceremonies are secretive and ban non-Mormon participants from attending. For these and many other reasons, support of this constitutional ban will help to preserve traditional marriage values that have lasted for over 3000 years, but the Mormon Church continues to desecrate.
In California this coming year, you will have the chance to add your name to make sure this proposition qualifies for the ballet box in 2010. Please inform your friends and neighbors about this initiative. All contributions and support will help to make sure true values are preserved in law.
Good article. Fact that it is in the NYTimes is itself an acknowlegement.
The first and last time I read anything in the NY Times. I’m ok with this but they’re usually just pounding on anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the Liberal agenda and I don’t.
It’s like the old “Sesame Street” game “which one of these don’t belong?”….No Morman just dropped a big old turd in the middle of the comments section. Besides the Mormans gave us Donnie and Marie so back off.
“Hats off though to my main hos at the NYT though for finally throwing their 2 cents in!Nice one, Itzkoff!”
Who you callin ho? :???: