9 thoughts on “One for the Old-Timers

  1. I’ll say one thing. Back when the OA was well-funded, it did a better job than it is able to do now. In many ways, including but not limited to dealing with race more thoroughly and with much greater nuance than it does now. I think Smirnoff is a boor, but I don’t think he’s stupid, and I think he’s secretly aware of that. So I don’t blame him for feeling resentful of the magazine that seems to have the money these days. But, um, editorializing about that resentment? Doubleplus ungood. I wish like anything that Grisham was still bankrolling the OA. But I don’t think that piece is a way to win advertisers.

  2. I also thought it was unseemly to name the writers who had either left OA or were writing for both places. Like what were those people supposed to do? Writers have to write for paying places to get paid, obviously. If G&G is a better paying gig, you can’t blame people for pitching to them as well.

  3. Well, one certainly ought not blame them. One can also understand how a shiny magazine aimed at a rich white audience that erases complication gets more advertising money than a magazine that enjoys complication and thus is able to pay its writers better. And I repeat that one well might feel resentful about the whole thing. There are ways and ways of dealing with resentment, however, and your older readers do remember that Smirnoff doesn’t always choose the best of those ways.

  4. Yeah, I certainly think that he’s spot on in his critiques. I’ve had my problems with the G&G content that seems to lean so heavily on “We’re just better” rather than “we’re different.”

    But lord knows his hands aren’t necessarily clean.

    I also think it’s strange that he‘s bothered by G&G. Aren’t they obviously looking to take on Southern Living, not the OA?

Comments are closed.