March 11, 2008
A Note From the Editor
Last night, we published a piece by columnist Ben Reed, entitled "Louis Black, We Hardly Knew Ye."
After discussions with our publisher, we've decided to remove the post from the site.
We believe that you, our readers, are better served if we keep our focus on the aspects of SXSW that make it such an enjoyable experience—the showcases, day parties, afterparties, and everything else involving free beer—rather than rehash the negatives that were already discussed ad nauseum last year.
Please feel free to vent in the comments section!
|
Advertisement: Austinist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
What -- did you get a threatening phonecall regarding the day party tomorrow?
I'm best served with smack-talk about austin psuedo-celebs, please dish up.
Of course, I'm censoring myself right now with a slew of commentary about mr. black/chron, but whatever.
That's fine. The "I hate Louis Black" horse was beaten to death a year ago.
But what happened to the IST-list?
The IST List will return next week, once SXSW is over. We're totally slammed with the festival stuff this week!
Why even post this? I didn't see the original, but now I want to and I think you're kinda weak for removing it.
I hated Louis Black so much that I came full circle. Now I think he's like a benevolent Cthulu.
I give up.
it's still available in Google Reader! Muhuhahahahaaha!
This just goes to prove what the article said, the guy is a total fascist if he can get articles pulled from blogs.
All I know is what goes around comes around, karma will make sure LB gets his, whatever that ends up being.
I love it. The notion that we're ok with censorship as long as they're censoring something we don't like.
Apparently Louis Black is more powerful than Zuckerberg.
Parties and free beer. Just more distraction. Just why would this media outlet be any different than all the others? I have not and will not support SXSW. Even though I love a good party, do what I can to support local acts, and find it hard to refuse free beer. I never knew that the Austinist was so worried about it's image. Wait - I stand corrected - I never knew that the Austinist was so worried about it's advertising dollars. Man, this is the kind of fascist censorship crap I kind find on CNN. Thank you Austinist, you have shown your true colors.
let's see if this comment gets deleted, too.
well, i didn't read the article until just now - it's still up:
http://austinist.com/2008/03/10/the_accidental_12.php
but, why did you really pull it?
i mean, we know why - just don't lie to us. wtf? are your readers a bunch of imbeciles? do you have that much contempt for us?
if that Louis Black dude - or whatever rich, fat, white, old guy - is skimming cash out of the registers to keep it out of the hands of the IRS, then don't you think that's something Austinist readers should know? or do we have to go to a real newspaper for real news?
just asking.
Though extremely well written and perhaps echoing the sentiments of many in Austin, the column was still in poor taste and should not have been published in the first place. We remedied this situation after discussing it with the publisher -- obviously, just taking it down without at least leaving a note would have led those inclined to conspiracy theories to speculate that something sinister had occurred.
Unfortunately, as much as I love intrigue and not-so-secret underground societies, there were no shenanigans involving the granola mafia and/or abacus aficionados in this case. BUT MAYBE ONE DAY!
We'll be taking that link offline eventually, but if you'd like to read an archived version, it's also available here:
http://escapeest.com/benreed031108.htm
There's no reason why you can't (or shouldn't) read it--as a standalone piece, it raises very valid points--but it has no place on Austinist.
First and most importantly, regarding shmooth's comment, a quick clarification: I never suggested Louis Black has ever skimmed money from SXSW tills. What appears in the column is simply the observation that one task of the head of the organization is to collect the actual door money. That's all.
Second--and this is for you, Allen--thanks for stating the article "has no place on Austinist." (Ouch.) When I was invited to be a columnist, I thought it was both my words and my actual opinion that was being invited on board. Thanks for clearing up that misconception, and for making me feel better about my decision to quit.
But, if you really want to be honest with the readers, at least explain that said column 'has no place on Austinist... anymore.' Go ahead and look at the archives. While the piece would have flown in the recent past (probably to relatively little fanfare, good or bad), it is, I admit, wholly incompatible with the new direction you'd like to go.
Although explaining this will most likely prove unnecessary. I'm sure they'll catch on.
It's a shame that Austinist is losing Benj. Honestly, the piece in question was the first time I've actually been struck by the skill of an Austinist contributor.
I read the Austinist because I'm bored at work, and I like to keep tabs on a small group of artists/musicians in Austin who frequent the Beauty Bar: insular quips from a crowd that likes to hold their cameras away from themselves, but pointing at themselves. Not that there aren't other talented writers on the staff, but this was the first time I was actually struck by how well crafted a submission was.
I just registered to comment now because of Allen Chen's statement that Benj's piece was in "poor taste". I can't understand this. Is the idea that it's like insulting the host of a posh party you want to be invited to? LB has no problem being directly insulting or spitting venom. So why is it that an eloquent response taking him to task (with tongue and cheek humor) is in "poor taste"?
Is the Austinist "about Austin and everything that happens in it." Or is it about LB's party?
It's a shame that Austinist is losing Benj. Honestly, the piece in question was the first time I've actually been struck by the skill of an Austinist contributor.
I read the Austinist because I'm bored at work, and I like to keep tabs on a small group of artists/musicians in Austin who frequent the Beauty Bar: insular quips from a crowd that likes to hold their cameras away from themselves, but pointing at themselves. Not that there aren't other talented writers on the staff, but this was the first time I was actually struck by how well crafted a submission was.
I just registered to comment now because of Allen Chen's statement that Benj's piece was in "poor taste". I can't understand this. Is the idea that it's like insulting the host of a posh party you want to be invited to? LB has no problem being directly insulting or spitting venom. So why is it that an eloquent response taking him to task (with tongue and cheek humor) is in "poor taste"?
Is the Austinist "about Austin and everything that happens in it." Or is it about LB's party?
Sycophants. That's all I'm saying. Oh and this - I wonder if it was the new super slut woman that got Ben's piece pulled.
I wasn't your biggest fan, Ben, but you don't deserve this kind of treatment.