A. O. Scott: The Man, The Tumblr (Twitter)

Yesterday we wrote about the second-best movie critic fan Tumblr (besides F*ck Yeah, Rex Reed, of course): A.O. Scott Zingers. After noting that The New York Times' reviewer had only been quoted on the site twice this year, we sent a message to Mr. Scott on Twitter and asked what he thought of a whole Tumblr dedicated to his movie take-downs.

Imagine our surprise when we received not one but two responses from Mr. Scott regarding his fan page.

"Flattered and tickled!" The newspaper's chief film critic responded late yesterday evening, before following up with a quick, "tho when they don't update I worry that I've lost it."

We assuaged Mr. Scott's fears, as anyone who could write such a scathing take-down of Ted ("The sin...is not that it is offensive but that it is boring, lazy and wildly unoriginal") has obviously still got "it."

Really though, we read every A.O. Scott review secretly hoping he hated the film, so we can giggle over his  hysterically funny take-downs. (See: Shutter Island, perhaps our favorite non-Observer movie review of all time.) And now there's a Tumblr for that, too!

Updated too infrequently for our liking--seriously, if you are the owner of this blog, please allow us to send in submissions or at least take a look at F*ck Yeah Rex Reed to see how it's done-- A.O. Scott Zingers take the best one-liners of the critic's reviews and posts them without comment. A typical example will read something like this:

Semi-abandoned(only two updates in 2012!), A.O. Scott Zingers could be a great Tumblr...nay, a brilliant Tumblr...should it start aggregating a little more from its source. We call upon whomever is running this thing to start updating with more frequency...or at least post something from his review of Katy Perry: Part of Me, in which the critic deftly sums up the experience:

"You would not believe how much Katy Perryness there is in the world."

Sorkin's hatred of bloggers, blogs, websites, forums, and pretty much anything printed on any material other than paper that isn't a manifesto devoted to his radiant brilliance has manifested in both his work and interviews plenty of times before.

But this particular exchange—with The Globe and Mail's Sarah Nicole Prickett—was an astounding display of glib, misogynistic, and slightly sociopathic jackassery, especially on behalf of a guy who could probably use the benefit of the doubt as far as People Who Write On The Internet go. Given that, you know, his last television project failed, and also, given that they keep uncovering the various ways he's recycled his own material over the years (from teleplays to commencement speeches), he could probably afford himself the benefit of the doubt.

And yet, this happened:

"Listen here, Internet girl," he says, getting up. "It wouldn’t kill you to watch a film or pick up a newspaper once in a while." I’m not sure how he’s forgotten that I am writing for a newspaper; looking over the publicist’s shoulder, I see that every reporter is from a print publication (do not see: Drew Magary). I remind him. I say also, factually, "I have a New York Times subscription and an HBO subscription. Any other advice?" He looks surprised, then high-fives me. Being not a person who high-fives or generally makes physical contact with interview subjects, I look more surprised.

"I’m sick of girls who don’t know how to high-five," he says. He makes me try to do it "properly," six times. He also makes me laugh; I’m nervous, and it’s so absurd. He loves it. He says, "Let me manhandle you." Then he ambles off, hoping I’ll write something nice, as though he has never known how the news works, how many stories can be true.

Inevitably, The Internet which he so loathes has natrually taken this moment and run with it. Meet Aaron Sorkin's least favorite Tumblr, Hey Internet Girl.

For example:

And:

As well as:

And so on. (Naturally, the entire site has already been copied onto a Buzzfeed post we won't link to, but if whole-hog copy-and-paste from them doesn't certify a meme on some level, what does?)

Aaron Sorkin may finally now realize that you reap what you sow, especially in the Age of Viral Content. Or he's just going to let this aggression build up and release it in the form of more long-winded speeches by The Most Heroic Fictional News Anchor Ever, Will McAvoy, or even worse, deify the blogger-hating Steve Jobs in his screenplay about the Apple founder's life.

We'd put the safe money on the latter of the two options.

fkamer@observer.com | @weareyourfek

All over Twitter, and Tumblr, and email and Instant Message, media folks are passing around a new Tumblr they are wasting their precious time laughing at today.

Welcome to Editor Real Talk: It's a series of GIFs with captions that cannily take note of the various euphemisms employed in newsrooms by editors (and what those euphemisms actually mean), or how editors are secretly reacting to certain situations. It's basically the Texts With Bennett of media people, except with far more truth to it.

For example:

WHEN A LIQUOR COMPANY SENDS US SAMPLES

The implication here is that being sent free liquor is very exciting, because most people who work in media are generally amiable, little monsters (hence, the Muppets) who also happen to be ravenous, freeloading alcoholics. It is funny because it is generally true.

Another one? Sure.

WHEN I SAY “SOMEONE SHOULD TOTALLY WRITE THAT PIECE”

The idea being conveyed here is that when editors come up with purportedly "brilliant" ideas and then say the words "someone should totally write that piece," they are not actually suggesting that anyone could and should write said piece, they are indicating that the person or people in their immediate vicinity will write that piece. These words can also follow a writer casually tossing out an idea, like, say, "You know what's funny? Media couplings. How odd are they!" which you say jokingly because you have to say something but some editor seizes the moment and their eyes light up and they say "someone should totally do that" and you're like "Do what, arbitrarily rank them?" and they smile by which they mean "you have spoken the monster's name, the monster is now yours to feed" (the lesson being that if you work in a newsroom never suggest anything unless you have already started working on it because you so desperately want to, otherwise, you will end up working on it).

Again, this all rings of very distinct truths.

We don't know who's doing this one [UPDATE: We do now, see below.], but it is very, very good and should probably be on every aspiring media employee's required reading list prior to employment in any media workplace. We have heard that Jenna Wortham of the New York Times is working on this, but one factor ruling her out is that Wortham is not a top-editor, and thus, might not have the time to do this* because she has work to do all day.

At this point, everyone

(A) In the top-tenth of their masthead,
(B) With a door to their office,
(C) With an assistant or deputy,
(D) Taking more than five meetings a week, none of which are with sources

are suspect. Please tell us who is doing this. Please.

*NOT-A-TOP-EDITOR REAL TALK.

UPDATE: As we published this, the writer of Editor Real Talk came out a few minutes before. Why so soon, Ann Friedman, Executive Editor of GOOD Magazine? DID YOU ALREADY GET A BOOK DEAL? Either way, well done, and while we are relieved you are not anybody we work for and feel bad for your no doubt euphemism-plagued writers, you could've been anyone. Really. This is that good/true/funny/terrible.

fkamer@observer.com | @weareyourfek