phxated_wymanYoung Martin Cizmar, Easily Amazed Journalist™; a detractor; and a defender comment on PHXated’s recent exegesis of a Cizmar blog post.

PHXated prefers comments that disagree with him, but for variety’s sake will start things off with Young Martin’s detractor:

Tyler Hurst said on Wednesday, April 14, 2010:

He’s a criticizer, not a critic. He’s sole job is to piss people off and get the community riled up.
I suppose being really bad at what you do is one way to get attention.
Also, why do so many journalists treat blogs as shitty first-person accounts? Can’t the words and phrases they string together in a blog format be clear, concise and interesting? That’s what bloggers do!

PHXated responds: This is a good point. PHXated’s tendency is to refer to himself in the third person, using the blog title, which seems somehow to be not as solipsistic as the straightforward use of “I” and yet also serves to irritate people already predisposed not to be fans, so I can’t claim innocence on this count. That said, there is something searchingly banal about constructions like “As a press release I got today pointed out….”

Dan Gibson said on Wednesday, April 14, 2010:

Bill, ignoring for a moment the quoting of press releases, why wouldn’t George Strait be worthy of a blog post?
Admittedly, I wrote a feature about Strait for the New Times so my perspective is already on record, but there is something interesting about a career with the longevity and accompanying success he has achieved. After all, there are few country, pop or rock acts who have topped the charts in both the early 80’s and in recent years. Obviously there’s going to be some distinction between popularity and chart success, but dismissing artists offhand based on the fact that they actually have fans or radio spins (“Quality is what matters, not chart performance”) seems just as lazy critically.

PHXated responds: Dan, thanks for writing in. I didn’t say Strait wasn’t worthy of a blog post. He is worthy of a blog post and a feature article like yours. The point was that there was nothing in the blog post to warrant its being a blog post.

If you will recall the redoubtable piece of journalism that that blog post was, it told us that Young Martin Cizmar™ did a radio show on Strait, and that he did it in the face of those who might have found fault with it.

How brave he seemed!

Then we got the regurgitated press release, the news value of which I covered in my original post, and then we were left with the comforting realization that Young Martin Cizmar™ was on a first-name basis with the singer. (“Congrats, George.”)

So George Strait is worthy of a blog post in the same way anything is worthy of a blog post, when the writer of the blog post has something interesting to say about it.

Now, being a blogger himself, PHXated (and Hitsville!) knows that not every post is tip-top. But we expect better things from Young Martin than, you know, regurgitated press releases.

I don’t understand what you mean about the “distinction between popularity and chart success.”

As to your final point, I think that Strait is an unmemorable artist but an efficient and implacable country music star. As I noted originally, the undemanding country audience is actually quite loyal to artists like him; empty hats with thirty-year careers aren’t that unusual. (Serious people have them as well; Hank Jr. had a massive run, for example, and remained frequently surprising.) I didn’t say anything about your article. I’m in favor of serious features on artists of every sort. I’m not in favor of regurgitated press releases.

Speaking of which, why are we “ignoring the quoting of press releases?” Isn’t that what my item was about?

Martin Cizmar said on Wednesday, April 14, 2010:

Bill,
I talked extensively about Strait during my hour-long guest DJ slot, where I played a lot of his best songs. Also, Dan Gibson wrote a piece for us putting Strait’s greatness in perspective. Also, my concert review discusses a lot of your rhetorical questions. It’s not like this is the first and only thing I’ve ever written about him, and the questions you ask aren’t answered elsewhere.

Cizmar’s comment continues below….

PHXated responds: Dear Martin:

Thank you for that edifying account of your recent activities. The next time you write in, feel free to address the point of my post, which was that you were recycling meaningless commercial benchmarks from a record-company press release, and getting a little choked up about it besides. (“Congrats, George!”)

p.s. I did not portend to ask any “rhetorical questions.”

p.p.s.: I want to commend you on your recent tweet: “Off-Brand Fudgsicles: Always a Mistake.”

… Cizmar’s comment concludes:

Tyler,
Still haven’t heard from your lawyer! I did, however, hear from two lawyers who were quite amused by your post and our back and forth… they suggested I should actually sue you, since calling a journalist “a defaming liar” is actually defamation, in their book. Pretty funny stuff. Don’t worry, though, I’m not a little bitch.

PHXated responds: Readers who find this all opaque should know that Young Martin Cizmar™ is referring to a recent blog post by Mr. Tyler Hurst, of whom PHXated is a fan, raising some somewhat heated questions about libel after Young Martin said Mr. Hurst, a freelance marketing consultant, “con[ned] idiotic businesses into paying […] to teach them basic stuff.”

Mr. Hurst then said Young Martin was a “defaming liar,” and barristers have apparently been consulted. PHXated will keep readers apprised of any ensuing legal developments, or duels.

Previously in PHXated!:

April 14: Young Martin Cizmar™ update!

April 9: Should KJZZ play indie rock?

April 2: Martin Cizmar: ‘Dost thou portend to know what was notable?’

April 1: McCartney Mania! New Times’ Martin Cizmar responds!

March 31: The curious Martin Cizmar …