Jean Carey is Going to Doggie Hell and Wikipedia’s Nerds Say, "Who?"

Hi. We've been too busy burrito-ing, digesting David Remnick's Reporting, and swimming through the divine bowels that are the Midtown Target deciding which Napoleon Dynamite Christmas cards to buy our lawyer and psychiatrists to do the regular exegesis. Don’t worry. We’re not those yupps on line at the registers chattering into our KRZRs breezily summarizing “how nice the new Target is.”

Nor are we so lethargic, jaded and post-grad "…mommy" as to not specifically call out New Times' music editor-by-default Jean Carey as a stupid twatwaffle (thanks Gawker). Keep reading. This leads somewhere.

You see, now that Leo Dicaprio is all set to give the liberals at Stop an important matter to chat about (besides his facial hair), New Times unabashedly lifts our Bling feature, on Miami director Kareem Edouard’s film about conflict diamonds, for their music section. Their article comes complete with a similarly delivered pop-cult-y intro by writer Sire Esquire followed by a very similar but highly atypical Q&A (fave New Times question: If you could wear any type of jewelry, what would it be?). Here is their article and here is our article (from months back). We agree that we temporarily reside in a small pond for editorial content and, hey, the more exposure for a fledgling Miami filmmaker the better. That said, the tipping point arises from the fact that New Times and Jean Carey blatantly published a photo from the feature on our website (one clearly credited to ignore) taken at a photo-shoot we scouted, arranged and commissioned with staff photog Josh Reinhard on our dime. Unlike New Times, when we post features, we take the time and effort to shoot the talent. We don’t use ubiquitous press-shots, especially for local talent, and squeeze them inside text-suffocated negative space.

Of course, when reached by telephone, New Times via their art director snottily and skittishly retorted, "I highly doubt the editor of that section has even heard of your Web site, blah blah." Even though, as we pointed out, the same editor, aforementioned twatwaffle Jean Carey aka The Bitch, name-dropped our site in her column “The Bitch” printed in the very same issue containing the article and photo in question. Umm, coincidence, much?

Oh, and here’s a side-note about Jean’s column from that issue (see the “Studio A Closes” item). Hey Jean, why do we keep receiving inquisitive calls from Lara Coppola every time she sees her name (and, more scarily and ethically dubious, misquotes attributed to her by you) in your column? Why does Ms. Coppola think that “we must have talked to you” because, well, she hasn’t? According to Lara, she has never spoken to you. She doesn’t even know who the fuck you are, just like Wikipedia, which recently erased your self-posted entry because you were deemed, we shit you not, “irrelevant.”

We’re guessing someone will soon be calling the big doggies in Colorado…again. In conclusion, after we wasted countless minutes listening to editor-in-chief Chuck Strouse fill in his necessary quota of profanity (so old school “alt-“) and listening to his "we're all in this journalism thing together, right?" elementary dismissal of copyright violation, we get the “Clarification” posted above, ripped from the current edition. Not a “Correction,” mind you, per our request, but a “Clarification,” one that doesn’t even have the decency to credit or apologize to our photographer.

So to clarify, yes, Chuck, the name of the author who wrote your paper’s lesser version of our article, Sire Esquire (twatwaffle), is "great" because of the esquire-mediated litigation that could have ensued if we weren't busy at Target and BANGing the black lipstick out of sites like Miami Nights in hits (SpiderPussy banner ads? One helluva “blog empire”) without posting anything for months.

That’s all. We’re off now to go see Deck the Halls.

ignore Staff