Okay, so I just read Emily Gould's article in the New York Times Magazine. In my defence, I was on an exercise bike at the gym and had nothing else to do but read 8,000 words of rambling droning drivel. For those who don't know this lady, she is famous for writing on a website called gawker which has a section where it spies on celebrities and she became famous from this TV clip where she looks like a total deer with Tourettes who gets grilled by Jimmy Kimmel.
Anyhow, she suffered a nervous breakdown after receiving lots of hurtful comments about her disastrous appearance on this show and finally quit the gawker gig. And then lay on the floor in the foetal position and started wondering whether she hadn't been a little too fast in saying that citizen journalism should be allowed, ie. that celebrities have no rights and should always be under the media microscope. Now, poor dear, she too was under the microscope and she couldn't cope. She also cracked up from the thought that she had written a lot of personal stuff on her blog and suddenly she didn't want anyone to read it anymore. She lost the will to blog for a while. Once she'd recovered, she managed to write the article for the New York Times. Why, if you wanted to no longer be under public scrutiny? A bit hypocritical really. Because now bloggers will be blogging about someone who is no longer a blogger. She must be so addicted to people commenting on her that she needs to be commented on even though it gives her panic attacks.
I was also intrigued to see her face up on chickipedia - the site for hot chicks - and then got angry because I wasn't up on it because I'm a hot chick too. So I put myself up there (hey, feel free to edit me if you like), and will not get upset if anyone leaves nasty comments because I like to think I'm not so naive as Emily. Although I am, cough, ten years older.
12 hours ago