MSM update: Dana Kennedy is too good to consider your plebeian criticism. Got that, peasant?

A friend of mine, on her Facebook page, posted a link to an article on Scientology by a journalist named Dana Kennedy (who I’d frankly never heard of. My bad). I read the piece and thought it was well reported — but, I said in a comment on the friend’s Facebook page,

I didn’t like the word repeated word “attack” Dana Kennedy used when describing what the church said, versus the tamer words she used to describe the severe criticism of the church by former members. FWIW, I think Scientology is a ridiculous cult and I hope it withers and dies, the sooner the better (I feel pretty much the same way about all religions by the way), but there was a tendentious tone to the article that clearly took it out of the realm of objectivity.
Tame stuff in the scheme of things, right? I offered a quick and (to my eye) coolish take on Kennedy’s article — no hyperbole, nothing wild, no ad hominems. I thought no more of it.

But my comment infuriated La Kennedy herself. Apparently, she’s friends with my friend, and she responded in semi-public the next day, on Facebook, as if I’d just unfavorably compared her firstborn to Satan’s pestilent spawn. I guess I ought to be flattered that Ms. Kennedy first googled my name, even if she was just looking for fodder to turn into condescending little barbs (though I’m sad to say that her journalistic talents don’t extend to the ability to spell my name correctly). Here’s her reply, verbatim:

Roger, I am so honored to receive this helpful analysis from you. Especially after reading about your self-described “thriving journalism career in Amsterdam and New York.” I feel a bit as if I’m sitting at the (virtual) feet of a journalistic Rembrandt. Props, too, to your new career in Maine as a wedding photographer. I hope to up my game to the point where I have that to look forward to as well.

If I’m reading her correctly through the slathered-on sarcasm sauce with an extra dollop of snotty, you and I have no business making any kind of less-than-fawning remark about Ms. Kennedy’s work unless we are currently journalists or editors employed by mainstream media. I mean, if I’d elected to keep working for A-list publications on both sides of the Atlantic, as I did for a couple of decades — writing feature stories for Vogue, Wired, Reason, the New York Times, Rolling Stone, and others — the diva might, just might, have taken my fairly tepid comment to heart.

But an opinion from an (ick) journalist-turned-photographer? Worse, a wedding photographer? Worse still, a Maine-based wedding photographer? Well, she never! Ms. Kennedy appears to believe that no media figure of her staggering stature ought to be inconvenienced by a creature deluded enough to choose to live in Maine (why, that’s almost flyover country!), and misguided enough to have decided to make a living with images instead of words.

Gotta wonder how much Dana Kennedy will stamp her little feet if, one fateful day, a mere teacher or a lowly bus driver doesn’t show her sufficient deference on Facebook.

I feel for poor, beleaguered MSM demi-celebrities who wake up one day to realize that, yes, all that smelly rabble they used to talk at now has a voice too.

Sorry, hon.

About Rogier:
Rogier is a Dutch-born, New-England-dwelling multi-media maven (OK, a writer and photographer) whose dead-tree publishing credits include the New York Times, Wired, Rolling Stone, Playboy, and Reason.
Bookmark and Share
This entry was posted in media. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

3 Comments

  1. Posted July 10, 2012 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    Ms Kennedy must be a bit of a sloppy researcher since she missed the opportunity to slam you for being a lowly unpaid blogger at a site that includes posts from a computer programmer, a criminal lawyer, and a whore.

  2. JZ
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 11:14 am | Permalink

    Just another vain, thin-skinned, predictable, disposable MSM prelate, judging by the first few of her articles I read. Her willingness to overreact to random feedback on FB indicates what I now consider an entirely appropriate unease with her lot.

  3. Rogier
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

    Mark: Ha! Indeed!