Sunday, June 05, 2005
Boston as non-retro retro celebrity non-hip hip: I liked this Globe article a lot. But how it got through the whole article about Boston-celebrity watching without mentioning The Track or, a distant second, Names is beyond me. Chalk one up to the newspaper wars -- not that Hub Blog isn't guilty of the same ommission sin now and then. Guess any talk of Boston's anti-retro retro celebrity non-hip hip attitude would logically lead to the obvious conclusion that a certain paper has a better ... Never mind. (Bending over backwards to be fair here, in case you didn't notice. I'm sure this post is zipping over the head over a certain chain blog.)
Update -- An email from Bill prompted me to tinker with the post so it isn't as vague toward the Globe. Sorry about that. As I was saying about ommission sins... BTW: I work for the Herald, the paper that doesn't carry Doonesbury.
Update II -- From Reader No. 1: "What about Improper Bostonian? (The Hub's answer to 'US' magazine.)" ... Good catch. For that matter, Boston magazine.
Update -- An email from Bill prompted me to tinker with the post so it isn't as vague toward the Globe. Sorry about that. As I was saying about ommission sins... BTW: I work for the Herald, the paper that doesn't carry Doonesbury.
Update II -- From Reader No. 1: "What about Improper Bostonian? (The Hub's answer to 'US' magazine.)" ... Good catch. For that matter, Boston magazine.
