The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.
Ground Zero’s future
: The NY Times celebrates disarray in cultural plans for the World Trade Center site and in a typically self-indulgent editorial act has its own critics blather on about what they’d do there (or, actually, blather on to try to show how cute they can be).
A.O. Scott, the movie critic, ends up absurdly but starts out ok:
We already have more than our share of monuments to polite culture
Self-indulgent editorial blather? I don’t agree. The editors of the Arts section simply want to “jump-start the discussion.” That’s their right, just as its the right of any owner of a blog to engage in their own self-indulgent blather.
I submitted a plan for the WTC. I’m still proud of my suggestions.
“Minoru Yamasaki
The best way to conceptualize the Time’s repsonse to the challenges and opportunities that reconstruction presents is to see its response for the occasionally noble, intellectually incoherent but always self-interested partisanship that it is.
Henceforth, discussion should start with “Congressman Times says …”
No one has ever explained to me why that building has not come down.
Oh, “sbw”? Lovely. Hand that hosebeast in to your professor. Then shut up and go back to bloody Berlin, or wherever you think that crap can fly, ’cause it ain’t happening here.
> Then shut up and go back to bloody Berlin, or wherever you think that crap can fly, ’cause it ain’t happening here.
I don’t mind what you think of my verbiage, or my suggestions … but if you don’t miss the beauty of the WTC arch, your vision and your sense of beauty is sorely afflicted.
Too bad for you!
I think this whole process suffers from far much government and too little capitalism.
If Donald Trump owned that land the towers would be halfway to rebuilt already.