My guess is, Kathryn Rem was contacted by Catie Girl herself to write this advert…er um…article about the restaurant to counter all the negative mojo her email antics caused. Turning off comments for this one was a no-brainer. It would have been flooded by 9am.
Comment by Sven | May 16, 2008
You know … this is the sort of thing that really annoys me. Isn’t that story just a thinly veiled advertisement for Catie Girls? Oh it’s a story about restaurants over the years at the St. Nick … but it’s REALLY a story about THE restaurant. So is this an attempt to bring back business after The Incident?
I kinda had the same feeling all of you seemed to have- that it was a damage-control free advertisement hand-job piece of fluff disguised (and very poorly so) as a piece on the St. Nicholas hotel and the history of the restaurants therein.
I would have LOVED to have seen the reader comments as well, but as Sven pointed out, it was a no-brainer on the SJ-R’s behalf to turn them off. I imagine some of the more industrious will find a way to get their comments out there anyway.
At least I hope so…
Comment by Johann | May 16, 2008
Funny how I came here to link toward Johann wondering why UH was on hiatus and found myself having to put on my features-editor hat. Anyway …
This story was in the works long before The Incident, as it were, had even happened. So to suggest it was somehow written “to counter all the negative mojo her e-mail antics caused” or even by suggestion of Caitie herself is patently false. In fact, making mention of The Incident - whether in this story or elsewhere in the newspaper - was extensively discussed. It’s my understanding that Caitie chose not to discuss The Incident with Kathryn or any of our other reporters who inquired about it. That’s her prerogative. And to force mention of it into this feature story - about the history of the St. Nicholas as a restaurant - seemed like an inessential tangent to me. As to the comments question, I honestly don’t know whether this was a story on which that feature was turned off.
I’m not attempting to change anyone’s minds about whether they liked the story. I just wanted to explain that there’s no conspiracy or underhandedness afoot. And if you’ve got any other questions, I’d be happy to answer them. Thanks.
Hey, I ain’t sayin’, I’m just sayin’. I did not mean to infer any conspiracy or underhandedness was afoot per se; I merely thought it was strange, that’s all. It just struck me (and, apparently, others as well) as odd by the timing of it all, and the major emphasis of the article being on Caitie Girl specifically, as opposed to the history of the restaurants there, as we were (or at least I was) led to believe the article was about.
At any rate, thank you for the clarification, UH, and my apologies- especially for ending the previous sentence with a dangling modifier like that.
Comment by Johann | May 16, 2008
I’m with Johann on this one. I’ll take you at your word, UH … but …
It was just odd that after the e-mail dustup and ensuing negative buzz … that … what? two weeks later? … the local paper would have a “Wow, let’s look at the history of the restaurants at a certain hotel but more importantly let’s talk about the restuarant that is there now and how she financed it and painted it and …”
And while we’re on the subject, lemme tell you exactly what made me go “Hmmmm” as I read the article …
The local blogging scene specifically debated whether or not Catie Girl had rich parents who gave her the restaurant or whether she financed it herself. And … lo and behold … an article comes out with the details of her financing?
I want to believe, Mulder … but … I’ll take UH’s word if he says it’s so.
Yeah, that story left me sort of puzzled, and not just because of The Incident.
I wonder why we can’t post comments.
I meant on the article. Comments on the article.
My guess is, Kathryn Rem was contacted by Catie Girl herself to write this advert…er um…article about the restaurant to counter all the negative mojo her email antics caused. Turning off comments for this one was a no-brainer. It would have been flooded by 9am.
You know … this is the sort of thing that really annoys me. Isn’t that story just a thinly veiled advertisement for Catie Girls? Oh it’s a story about restaurants over the years at the St. Nick … but it’s REALLY a story about THE restaurant. So is this an attempt to bring back business after The Incident?
Oh, and PS Marie … I would’ve LOVED to have seen the comments. What a shame …
I kinda had the same feeling all of you seemed to have- that it was a damage-control free advertisement hand-job piece of fluff disguised (and very poorly so) as a piece on the St. Nicholas hotel and the history of the restaurants therein.
I would have LOVED to have seen the reader comments as well, but as Sven pointed out, it was a no-brainer on the SJ-R’s behalf to turn them off. I imagine some of the more industrious will find a way to get their comments out there anyway.
At least I hope so…
Funny how I came here to link toward Johann wondering why UH was on hiatus and found myself having to put on my features-editor hat. Anyway …
This story was in the works long before The Incident, as it were, had even happened. So to suggest it was somehow written “to counter all the negative mojo her e-mail antics caused” or even by suggestion of Caitie herself is patently false. In fact, making mention of The Incident - whether in this story or elsewhere in the newspaper - was extensively discussed. It’s my understanding that Caitie chose not to discuss The Incident with Kathryn or any of our other reporters who inquired about it. That’s her prerogative. And to force mention of it into this feature story - about the history of the St. Nicholas as a restaurant - seemed like an inessential tangent to me. As to the comments question, I honestly don’t know whether this was a story on which that feature was turned off.
I’m not attempting to change anyone’s minds about whether they liked the story. I just wanted to explain that there’s no conspiracy or underhandedness afoot. And if you’ve got any other questions, I’d be happy to answer them. Thanks.
Hey, I ain’t sayin’, I’m just sayin’. I did not mean to infer any conspiracy or underhandedness was afoot per se; I merely thought it was strange, that’s all. It just struck me (and, apparently, others as well) as odd by the timing of it all, and the major emphasis of the article being on Caitie Girl specifically, as opposed to the history of the restaurants there, as we were (or at least I was) led to believe the article was about.
At any rate, thank you for the clarification, UH, and my apologies- especially for ending the previous sentence with a dangling modifier like that.
I’m with Johann on this one. I’ll take you at your word, UH … but …
It was just odd that after the e-mail dustup and ensuing negative buzz … that … what? two weeks later? … the local paper would have a “Wow, let’s look at the history of the restaurants at a certain hotel but more importantly let’s talk about the restuarant that is there now and how she financed it and painted it and …”
And while we’re on the subject, lemme tell you exactly what made me go “Hmmmm” as I read the article …
The local blogging scene specifically debated whether or not Catie Girl had rich parents who gave her the restaurant or whether she financed it herself. And … lo and behold … an article comes out with the details of her financing?
I want to believe, Mulder … but … I’ll take UH’s word if he says it’s so.
I’m right there with you, 30What.
I’m taking UH at his word- because he’s a friend.