======= ======= ====== ====== ====== ===== ==== ====== ====== ===== ==== ======= ======= ====== ====== ====== ===== ==== ====== ====== ===== ====
I’ll probably never get along with The New York Times. Not in a “Donald Trump! Fake news!” kind of way. But in a scorned lover who thinks that every action on Instagram from their ex is a direct shot at them. Oh, you followed Tad? That’s rich, New York Times. Not like I’ve been friends with him for thirteen fucking years.
But today they’ve taken it too far. I’ve already been conflicted in regard to whether or not I should have been mentioned in an exposé on wedding announcements in the past, but today, they did the worst possible thing an internet enemy can do to someone — they threw shade.
This wasn’t in the form of a subtweet or Snapchat story posted with their new boyfriend. No, this was with real, actual words that were meant to cut me deep. The column was titled Writing the Vows Column Means Crashing Weddings for a Living, and the excerpt was as follows:
The internet immediately erupted in jest about “these pompous hipsters,” as one critic described them. Although poking fun at announcements and Vows is nothing new (there are parody Twitter accounts, a book devoted to Times wedding announcement satire and more serious online screeds denouncing the section’s demographics), this time, it was particularly bad. The couple called Ms. Smith Brady to express their devastation. “They were sweet graduate students, but they got so trashed,” she says. “There’s this cynicism now that ruins love stories, to a certain extent.”
Don’t you dare make me the villain, New York Times. Don’t you dare. You did this to yourself. “Critic”? What the hell is a critic? I’m not judge, scholar, expert, or master reviewer. I’m simply a guy who calls it like he sees it when something shitty is published online.
What they’re referring to, of course, is the breakdown of a notably hipster marriage announcement that I did in June of 2016. Yes, they’re throwing shade over a year later for a column I wrote on this very website. Crazy.
I, personally, don’t believe my criticism was out of line. The original column was exactly how I described it – pompous and hipster – and the original author of the column, Ms. Smith Brady, did them a grand total of zero favors by portraying them as (likely) being more insufferable than they actually are. This announcement was covered by The Daily Mail, and a writer from The Washington Post even reached out to thank me for exposing the preposterous nature of these vows announcements. Humblebrag, but also not. This isn’t some grand coincidence orchestrated by a dude blogging in Outdoor Voices joggers four days a week. But even if it was, you could at least @ me.
The most biting part of the paragraph is the end – “There’s this cynicism now that ruins love stories, to a certain extent.”
No, there isn’t this cynicism now. People hate-read these more than they read-read them, and that’s not going to stop as long as you’re sitting behind your MacBook Air pumping these love stories into the scummiest place on earth: the internet.
There’s a reason people play their cards close. There’s a reason people don’t pull back the curtain and have private Instagram profiles. There’s a reason people refuse to post their baby’s face online until they’re old enough to talk. And that reason is because some things are simply meant to be shared between two people and not the 73 million people that read The New York Times on a monthly basis.
I didn’t ruin their love story; the internet did. .
Respond
Will
Will (Twitter / Instagram) is the host of The Sunday Scaries Podcast.
@willdefries
@willdefries
defriewf
will@grandex.co
The completely failing New York Slime can never get anything right. This unfair and totally biased attack on Will is more evidence of #FAKENEWS! These imposters must be stopped. Very bad (or sick) people!
SAD.
Between Ross borderline freelancing tweets for the Washington Post at this point and your tenuous relationship with the NYTimes, Grandex is really making power plays in the mainstream media landscape.
And they’ve still got a guy who spread his butt cheeks in Playgirl as a top commenter on an article. I love this place.
PGP ranks 853rd in News and Media > Newspapers online IN THE WORLD, so yeah, you’re pretty spot on with the observation.
You all missed the point of this piece: NYT linked Will’s article, on which we all posted, ergo NYT linked to our posts, which means NYT essentially published all of us. Gotta find the good in all situations, people.
wow this is truly huge for the squad
Will doing yeoman’s work and sewing seeds for all. A true giver in every sense of the word.
This is kind of like that time I won Time’s Person of the Year 2006
Ipso facto, we’re all entitled to royalty deals.
I can’t wait to tell my Mom about this. Who cares if I didn’t hit puberty until junior year of college, I’m published in NTY, baby!
Squaaaa….If this is the case, I’ve def been out on a government kill list now. Word
These NYT cucks don’t have shit on you, Will. Keep fighting the good fight.
Keep fighting the good fight Will. This is probably the most adversary the couples ever had
I mean it’s kinda neat that New York Times is writing about you if ya think about it
Guys, when is the pivot to video happening? I mean holy shittttttttt words are so dumb
I love that we have spent a decade complaining about autoplay video only for these companies to finally all go “We have to change something to reach the millenials…let’s get rid of the words.” Thanks guys. If there’s one thing I can do at work, it’s watch a loud video about something that has nothing to do with my job and takes longer to watch than it would to read.
Be honest, the entire point of this was to say how the New York Times mentioned you and that someone from the Washington Post contacted you.
Humblebrag, but not. But humblebrag.
I still wonder if you keep an over/under bet on how many of these nutbags divorce.
Hilarious lol. Love that the NYT feels like it has to clap back at Will