October 31, 2007
DiManno Watch: Five Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Six Hundred Minutes
Rosie DiManno sucks. Every day, poor Toronto Star readers are subjected to another over-the-top, awkwardly-written, occasionally-insulting column about the day's top depressing story from the purple-streaked purveyor of pulp. Torontoist, for one, can't take it anymore.
The Evidence
From today's "'Not even close' to fair trial: Wills," another story where DiManno gets to stretch her oh-so-weak writing muscles about Richard Wills:One hundred and sixty-nine days, since jury selection began in the first-degree murder trial of Richard Wills.Two thousand and eighty-three days since Linda Mariani – perhaps still breathing, we'll never know for sure – was stuffed into a plastic garbage canister and entombed behind a basement wall, which the defendant admits doing.
One thousand, nine hundred and seventy-one days since the victim's body was discovered by police, summoned by Wills, the trash bin-cum-sepulchre helpfully removed from its niche and waiting at the bottom of the cellar staircase.
Yesterday morning, finally, mercifully, the case went to the jury. Gathering up their documents and transcripts, a tall heap of paper, the six men and six women dutifully departed for deliberations without a backward glance, Wills' hungry eyes following them out the door. Otherwise, the defendant remained – unusually for him – immobile, soft hands clasped in his lap, nary a face-twitch nor a neck rotation nor a snotty snort.
The Verdict
4/6 DIMANNOS (The more DiMannos, the worse the column is.)
How do you measure, measure a year? If you're Rosie DiManno, you do it in trash bins, in soft hands, in maybe-he-did maybe-he-didn't live burials (Happy Halloween!), and in "snotty snorts" (what the fuck? seriously, what the fuck). Just be thankful that we didn't quote the part of the article where DiManno, talking about Wills's lawyers, says that "He'd gone through a bunch of `em, all cha-ching billing the Ministry of the Attorney General." Cha-ching indeed, Ms. DiManno.
|
Your graphic of Rosie DiManno made me wonder if you were hoping she'd fade away. Sure looks it.
Do Freudian slips happen in Photoshop? That was totally just a mistake on my part; I set the transparency too high on the last DiManno head.
Why would you bother reading her asinine reporting anyway? Just a question, I avoid all horrid reporters, rather putting up with her inane diatribe just don't read her, she may just go away lol ..... if only we could be so lucky eh ...
I love this, and I'm kinda hoping you add a sister column: Blatchford beat - but then again I kinda just hope these gals go away.
After all, closing my eyes and pretending they don't exist worked for me with REckler.
What is she even up to these days? Claiming that the producers of Superbad ripped her off? Pretending that her finance didn't kick her ass outta Calgary?
DiManno's not going anywhere. Like it or not, she's a big draw for the Star.
Speaking of slips, Beth's is awesome: Pretending that her finance didn't kick her ass outta Calgary?
I opened an issue of Maclean's from a couple of months ago yesterday and there was an Eckler piece about how she likes to carry her dog around in a sling. The previous page contained a Barbara Amiel rant about terrible dressing room lighting and amenities. Ugh.
It wasn't Freudian.
It was an intentional allusion. Allusion to what you ask?
Please see the following:
http://ninegrambrain.blogspot.com/
and prepare to giggle, superiorly.
I don't understand the rationale here.
No respectable media outlet would take on a rival's columnist at such a dimwitted level.
No self-respecting journalist would either.
Especially one who might aspire to work in the same small, insular market as his target.
Anyway. I bet she makes a lot more than you do. And you're scotching you're odds at doing any better.
I thought you lot aspired to work in the same league, in the same town, as people like DiManno.
Do you think you're doing yourselves any favours with dim-witted sections like this?
Blogging is not journalism, folks.
"Anyway. I bet she makes a lot more than you do."
Ah, yes, the "makes more money than you" comment (YOu forgot to add, "Nyah-Nyah!"). Because, as we all know, people who make more money are better looking, nicer, smarter and they smell nice. Well, there you go Mr. Topping, obviously since this woman (I think) makes more money than you do, she is obviously right, and a much more talented writer than You. You will obviously never amount to anything, you silly, silly, "dim-witted", blogger-poopy-head man.: - )
"...Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to You. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
I'm joking, of course. Topping good. DiManno bad.
considering the ist sites are the most poorly written, researched and executed "news" sites on the web, and that you outright steal from other, more legitimate news publications like the star, I would delete this story all together at risk of alienating one of your main sources of content.
"you outright steal from other, more legitimate news publications like the star"
Proof, please.
well you take their content, re write it, and then post it. just saying don't bite the hand that feeds you.
I would dispute the claim that the *ist are poorly written, researched or executed.
As to more "legitimate" news organizations...like who? I've seen plenty of so-called "legitimate" news organizations put out poorly written, researched and downright bias reporting.
Also, I don't believe Torontoist, or any "ist" claims to be CNN or MSNBC. They link to news stories and put their take on it.
I, for one. think they do a great job. Between this site and BlogTO, I know more about what's happening in TO than my friend who lives up there.
Let's put it this way - I read Torontoist daily, but I haven't purchased a Toronto Star in decades.
Take from that what you will.
i read it daily too. i also use torrent sites to get my cds. i am a bad person.
I don't think there's a point in arguing subjective claims (like that we suck, or that we don't suck) in this thread. I do, however, invite anyone to create Torontoist Watch.
What blog worth reading doesn't take content from elsewhere, rephrase it, and post?
First, isn't one of the prime points of blogging to put out Torontonians' view of Toronto news? It's as interesting, if not more, to hear reactions to news as hearing news itself. What paper have you read that doesn't have local letters and community editorials?
(Insisting that "legitimate" media outlets be allowed exclusive dictation of the news we read, also, doesn't strike me as particularly democratic.)
Second, ever heard of news agencies? They put out generic releases that are picked up by papers worldwide; there is no paper that doesn't benefit from sources like the Associated Press and Reuters. Local staff also use releases as source files for their own stories -- kinda like the way blogs operate.
Better yet, a paper like the Star regularly picks up stories, verbatim, from American papers; just today, there's a story taken from an edition of the New York Times -- one that's a few days old, at that. If you believe papers do all the legwork for every one of its stories, maybe you should read the bylines more carefully.
Not to mention, a lot of the mainstream media in Toronto––The Star included; I've had employees admit as much when I've been interviewed by them––get news stories from us. It's not all top-down.
I read/watch/listen to media outlets in Toronto pretty regularily, and from that I can state, with some confidence, the following.
Usually when the Torontoist talks about something that has been written about in the Star, they source the article.
Usually when the Star talks about something that has been written about in Torontoist, they do not.
Besides, Torontoist is not meant to be a "legitimate" media outlet. It's meant to be a (largely) unedited independant collective of disperate Torontonian voices.
It shouldn't elict comparisons to the Star because it's like comparing apples and oranges. They are indeed both fruit. But not the same kind of fruit. Try comparing gala and delicious and we'll talk.
Questions to ask before offering criticism:
Is it true?
Is it useful?
Is it kind?
I suppose if it's funny, that trumps all.
Ah, I should have known that that extra 'n' was too perfect to have been an accident. I've seen Nine Gram Brain before and I'm very glad someone started it.
I remember DiManno when I was a J-student back at Ryerson, and wished she'd go away back then. The favourite saying about her when she went ogg on a tangent was that she'd forgotten her Prozac that day (and just about every day). Despite what people say about Blatchford, at least the lady has a track record -- Star, Sun, etc. covering sports, politics, and much more. And Blatchford is a helluva lot more fun to be around!
Blatchford and DiManno: it all comes together.
So, they're like the Leah and Rebecca of being mean and cranky? That's awesome!
That definitely cleared up the relationship between those two for me.
And Dimanno must totally be the REckler of the friendship, 'cause they both went to Ryerson, and nobody liked them when they were there (not to mention they are both the weaker talent link in their prospective friendships)!
This makes me wonder what DiManno's copy editors have to say about her...
And what her work looks like before it makes it to print...
I appreciate that it's always fun to pick on bad writers, poor journalists, and people who are annoying, but how about maybe celebrating good journalism? david bruser's piece on questionable charities comes to mind: http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/273350