The Music Slut Editorial: Journalistic Ethics and Ultragrrrl
By now, you all have probably heard about Sarah Lewitinn and her Village Voice cover. We have no comment about "Ultragrrrl," either her personally or the manner in which she conducts business, but instead would like to shed light on the rebuttle that Chris Ott wrote in the article's comment section.“The Village Voice is not a blog, and cannot be wielded so carelessly, or treated as a brand. Its history and still-vast readership stipulate strict observance of and adherence to journalistic ethics.”
We agree with Ott that a piece pretending to be by an outside journalist when in actuality, it is fawning review written by a friend is unethical, especially when it is written for a major publication such as the Village Voice. It is one thing to read an interview conducted by a peer or a colleague, as in Interview Magazine for example, but Tricia Romano’s “In Defense of Ultragrrrl” never states to be so and in the process, dupes readers who do not know their connection. This was also the case when Marc Spitz wrote his sycophantic work in Vanity Fair entitled “Grrrls Got Rhythm,” an article in which Spitz tells the audience that he was once co-workers, not long-time friends, with Sarah.
We know Sarah to be a very nice girl, but question what loyalty she must inspire that convinces writers, and their editors, to allow for such pieces to be published. The Village Voice has always been a newspaper that New York City has looked to for unbiased, intelligent, and sometimes outrageous articles. The paper began in 1955 and has since gone on to cultivate a reputation for covering alternative stories from uncovering political scandals to reviewing the latest underground dance craze. It has won three Pulitzer prizes and has seen the likes of E.E. Cummings, Allen Ginsberg and Tom Stoppard all pass through its pages. We fear that since the New Times Media buyout in 2005, the Village Voice is becoming more and more, a sell-out. Or perhaps what is more likely, dangerously careless in its editorial process.
Labels: chris ott, editorial, marc spitz, tricia romano, ultragrrrl, village voice
posted by JK | 11:48 AM
9 Comments:
Dear Music Slut,
I love you.
Signed,
that dude jeff
100% agreed. the story should not have run as it did, it's a complete puff piece. but if it was to run as it has, it should have a distinct disclaimer stating the relationship between sarah and tricia. maybe, just maybe, would that assist in realizing what a waste of space that article became.
100000% agreed.
well put jen!
here here! i think that many of us loyal music folk in nyc second your sentiments in regards to the ultragrrrl piece. thank for you putting it in such a classy and respectful manner.
The editors of Spin needed an intern to tell them that Creed and Sugar Ray were shitty bands not worth covering? That's what makes Ultragrrrl a "listening machine"?
I haven't read Spin in years, so I'm not really familiar with Ultragrrrl - God, I'm annoyed just typing that name - but the impact that she's had says less about her and more about the idiots who are currently working in mainstream music journalism.
Thank you so much.. As long time music fan in New York who probably could be an apartment owner by now if I did not go every show I could... the piece in the village voice angered me for the same reason,"cronyism."
the problem is the only one percent of us who are connected in the "scene" are aware of this fact. the rest of the readership of the village voice have no wat to gage the truthfulness of this article. and i agree this does threaten the journalistic intergrity of the paper.
i never understood how she became "the tastemaker" for the new york music scene. she did not seem to appear for me until well into the hype of "the return of rock n roll". but you know what i tend to be so focused on the music that i do not pay too much attention around me.
honestly, i think sometimes Sarah uses her bands to promote herself. i think she walks the thin line on being another fame whore like paris hilton.
i think it would be nice to maybe credit the band's talent for gaining the attention of a wide audience. just a thought
I have to agree. The piece itself isn't necessarily misleading except that it omits the relationships between the participants. It undoubtedly happens all the time but you'd hope the Voice would be somewhat above that kind of pandering.
We have the New Times where I live, and I can tell you it's complete garbage. They have the ocassional meaningful piece, but for the most part it's sensationalist crap with paraphrased elements - and that's putting it mildly.
Agreed, Anonymous. People who know, know. Romano has responded to the criticism of her lack of journalistic objectivity by saying that she and Lewitinn know one another only on an "air-kiss basis," which is in and of itself barf-inducing. But lots of folks know that, whether or not those two ladies are bff-ers, they are certainly tightly connected: They're at least casual friends, and they have close friends in common.
Whether one "likes" or "hates" Lewitinn -- and whether that opinion is based on knowing her personally, professionally, tangentially, anecdotally, or even not knowing her at all -- seems to me beside the point when it comes to assessing the overarching shittiness of Romano's article. Those flaws are numerous, but the big ones seem to be:
1) It's just not very well written. Full of cliches, lacks corroborative detail, short on genuine reporting, and about four times longer than it deserves to be.
2) I know that the VV is a New York City paper, but it's also got a decades-old rep for addressing issues that interest folks outside our lil' burg, and addressing them in a way that makes their extra-NYC relevance apparent. The Ultragrrrl (U.G., if yr nasty) piece fails on both counts.
3) Then there's the content itself: Who gives a flying fuck about the fact that some messageboards devote too much space to dissing this chick? Even if Romano's conceit that UG needs defending is true, why does the Voice care to take up that battle? Aren't there more interesting, influential, culturally relevant, controversial, impactful people to "defend"? Doesn't Alberto Gonzales have any "air-kiss" friends at the Voice who could write a thinly veiled puff piece about why he's not as much of a schmuck as everyone says?
And so continues the Voice's slide toward irrelevance. I harbor no illusions about the presumed objectivity of the media. "Conflict of interest" is a tricky thing, and readers often are blithely unaware of the extent to which journalists and their subjects are somehow personally familiar. STILL, I find myself feeling somewhere between mildly chagrined and outright shocked that the top editors at the Voice didn't hold Romano's story, in particular, and their paper's coverage, in general, to a higher standard of journalistic excellence and ethical uprightness. Then again, maybe the new editor-in-chief is secretly advised by the Misshapes?
i know them both and i have an observer's understanding of their relationship. as far as i'm concerned tricia romano didn't mislead anyone, and she's correct about the fact that the level her friendship with sarah did not warrant a disclaimer. are reporters not allowed to write anything about anyone they've ever talked to at a show? they are both generally in the same business, and it's not uncommon to run into the same people often and say hello. it's not uncommon for this sort of run-in relationship to inspire a reporter to want to take the time to get to know someone better, as a subject.
this article is a totally different case, i think, than the marc spitz thing. i think the vanity fair write up should definitely have included something about the fact that they worked together and were at the very least friendly, if not good friends at some point. but also, it's not life or death either way.
and also, i don't think the piece moves the vv any closer to irrelevance; this has been the most talked about issue i can remember. it got plenty of people who were no longer interested in it to pick it up and read it again.
also also, thanks to spin and vh1 and band message boards and the like, sarah's definitely known outside of new york. i think it would surprise new yorkers to know that she's well-known around the country. anyone who's into music beyond the radio top 40 has probably heard of her by now, and the moniker "ultragrrrl" is nothing if not memorable. you only have to see it once at the bottom of the screen on "i love the 80s" to remember it.
Post a Comment
<< Home