Fall 2010 Milan, Fashion Week, Rants
Suzy Menkes Sticks Up For Milan, Then Pisses Me off
By Lauren Sherman
As a whole, International Herald Tribune fashion editor Suzy Menkes’ latest piece–on why Milan Fashion Week is often overlooked by the fashion industry–really struck me. “Italy—like any other host country—deserves more from the fashion world than a cursory glance at the shows. The audience needs time to savor the city,” says Menkes, referring to the fact that unlike New York or Paris’ shows, which go on for a week and a half, Milan’s run is just five days.
Part of the reason this piece hit a nerve: On the plane ride over here, I read the first half of John Fairchild’s Chic Savages–a memoir of the WWD publisher’s life working at the newspaper. It was originally published in 1989. While the brunt of the book focuses on how society gossip played a major role in the development of both the trade rag and its companion magazine W, he also happens to talk quite a bit about Milan in the late ’80s. In Fairchild’s world, Milan is the new Paris. The fabrics are best, the craftsmanship is best and many of the designers are best.
Much of this is still true–my Chanel bag, for example, was not made in France, but Italy–and much is not. Today, fewer people show up for Milan’s shows. I’m curious as to why, since Milan arguably has the strongest mix of commercial and editorial fashion. Of the three shows I took in today–D&G, Prada, and Versace’s dress rehearsal–each boasted several incredibly memorable looks that I’m sure will grace the pages of Vogue, V and everywhere in between this autumn. Yet they were all wearable, too. You can’t really say that about most of the ultra-directional looks walking through the other three cities.
Menkes modernized Fairchild’s thesis for the piece, talking about Milan’s cultural significance and why it was important for the editors and buyers who take in the shows to also take in the food, architecture and history.
Where Menkes lost me, however, is the moment that she broadens her thesis and delves into the general state of fashion publishing:
Then there are newspapers, facing economic turmoil and prepared to take desperate measures—like abandoning the first amendment of journalism that says a reporter must be there. Now it is supposedly acceptable to review collections, blogger-style, via the Internet. (Meanwhile, in an ironic switch, bloggers are sitting front row, filling spaces left by journalists with zero travel budgets.)
Two big things that bothered me about this statement. 1. That Menkes felt the need to separate bloggers from journalists. This is a tired idea. While not all bloggers are journalists, some journalists are indeed bloggers. (Yes, I write for a blog, but I’m a journalist who writes a news blog. Therefore I–nor anyone on our staff–would report on a show without seeing it.) 2. The idea that bloggers are sitting front row because “real journalists” can’t afford the trip is preposterous. Many online-only journalists possess an increasing amount of influence over the consumer. That’s why they’re sitting in the front row.
Menkes is my favorite fashion critic, and if there was a throne where the most important fashion writer in the world would sit at every runway show, I would want her in it. But what she’s not realizing is that the people who will follow in her footsteps probably won’t work at the IHT (which, by the way, doesn’t really even exist anymore–it’s subtitle calls it “The Global Edition of The New York Times“). Instead, they’ll work at blogs.
I truly hope that next time around, Menkes doesn’t ruin yet another superb think-piece with nostalgia.
Most Popular Stories
Comments [52]
Popular Stories
The 10 Best YouTube Hair Tutorials
The 10 Best YouTube Makeup Tutorials 
Fashion's Most Stylish Guys Give Mark Zuckerberg an (Almost!) Hoodie-Free Makeover for Facebook's IPO
Style and Substance: 10 Ladies Who Have Proven You Can Have Both
10 Beauty Boards You Should Be Following on Pinterest
One of the reasons I love Fashionista is the overwhelming passion exhibited by the editors and staff for what they do as journalists, bloggers, influencers, news breakers, and seemingly hip girls. Its cool to see your passion and frustration with the critics Lauren! Let em know girl!
Now this blogger vs journalist debate is just getting ridiculous. I need the older generation to understand that we no longer live in a clearly defined black and white world of anything, job roles and titles included. People need to learn to see gray for the awesome color that it is. Huffington Post is a blog…so are the bloggers that craft news pieces for that publication not journalists (please dont let this spark a blog is not a publication debate…wack)?!?
Journalist was a title formally meaning those that write in journals and was extended to include print. Then broadcast journalist for radio and tv. So why can't journalism unequivocally extend to the Internet (especially blog sites that are professional, ethical, and honest)?
I think there is a difference between blogging and journalism, although you are right to point out that the two are not mutually exclusive. There is an effort to dismiss bloggers, it's part nostalgia, part backlash from an entrenched and under threat strand of journalists. (I can't say I entirely blame them when many have deemed a 13 yr old capable of doing their job.) But there is an “I” present in blogging that's less conspicuous in journalism. When you read the formal reviews by Cathy Horyn or Suzy Menkes, they are careful to remove themselves, to focus on the clothes, design, and history. On balance, your post, as well written as it is, functions as the extension of a personal perspective: the comment about your Chanel handbag, you being a journalist, it is about you and what you think in a very “me” centered sort of way. I suppose the difference is that blogs seems to approach things in an 'all-about me' way. This is a result of changes in culture and media, and it will probably continue, but I don't think Menkes is wrong to privilege the way she's always functioned.
As much as I enjoy reading Fashionista, I must admit that one of its appeals is that it's an easy read. When I'm looking for something meatier, with more substance, where the writers have put in decades of work and study which enable them to legitimately critique collections, I go to Cathy Horyn and Suzy Menkes. Stories in prestigious newspapers are subject to extensive review, fact-checking, and other practices that result in the highest quality writing, practices that even the most popular blogs aren't forced adhere to. Just because you have a huge readership doesn't mean you're at the same level as veteran journalists. Stop thinking that you are. There's a time and a place for each type of writing, and obviously one of them is much more respected.
Anna,
Newspaper writers may take the I out of their stories, but they don't take themselves out of their stories. Everybody has an angle. What I've written here is an op-ed. Which in any newspaper would use the words “I” or “we.” Yes, our stylebook is less formal than theirs, but it is no less meaningful.
Also, I'd argue that as a critic, you must make it personal. That's why Cathy Horyn is so provocative. Because she says what she feels.
Anon,
Just so you know, I worked at Forbes magazine and Forbes.com for four years before starting at Fashionista. Any time we do original reporting–not commentary–we research and fact check.
I would also like to add that MANY critics from newspapers use “I” in their reviews, including The New York Times' art critic Holland Cotter, who won a Pulitzer Prize last year.
Lauren –
Judging from your comments, you sound offended. I don't know you at all, but I want to assure you that you have plenty of readers who read you as a valid journalist. The blog is a different medium from the newspaper article, and the mediums allow for stylistic differences, which some of the above commenters have alluded to. Just know, though, that plenty of us do understand that differences in style do in no way imply differences in talent, effort, accuracy, or any other measure of journalistic measure.
Ms. Menkes seems to believe that the blogger (or, should i say, blog journalist) is inferior to the newspaper journalist. In many cases this is true. In many cases it is not. And in many cases, the ability of the blog journalist exceeds that of the newspaper journalist. I read Fashionista because the last two statements apply to this particular blog often enough to make it just as compelling – though different – from its newspaper competitors.
I dont know Lauren, while I see your point (and think Menkes' tone is rather condescending), I think this blog reads at best like a mag editorial, I really don't come here for the news. Take for example Britt's continuous whining about the presence of velvet all throughout NYFW. It very much became the focus of many write ups, to the extent that all I took away from the piece was that Britt doesn't like velvet. Also when Kate (or Steff?) found Alaia at the Barneys' warehouse sale… these are all examples of the very individual, personal take you guys have. This is not a criticism at all, I loved the warehouse sale piece, but this is what distinguishes you from the Cathy Horyns of the world.
I'm not sure why the author took such a personal offense to a general statement. While I agree that Menkes is taking on a very tired perspective on the topic of blogger vs. journalists, the topic itself is certainly not exhausted. Especially when both sides only ever present the same arguments Bloggers are guilty of the same – in defending themselves, the tendency is to spout democratization of fashion. Cohabit the same place, sure, but journalists like Suzy Menkes/Horyn are not replaceable by the Bryanboys of the world in terms of influence, neither can print media be replaced by bloggers. Not so long as bloggers continue to put out more inane drivel than the rare substantiated post can offset, not so long as bloggers do not hold themselves accountable to proofreading – grammatical and factual, not so long as bloggers continue to revel in this irreverence for the very work toward which they aspire – fashion and writing. The blind worship of fashion by bloggers, the regurgitation of the same takes across the board of so many blogs, perpetuate the idea that fashion occupy a vapid and superficial space of irrelevance. Commercially, bloggers do have a place, but in terms of journalism? Let's not kid ourselves, there is a slim 1% who deserve to be heard. It is not a matter of a title of journalism or blogger, it is what you have to back it up.
Why use the fact that you've worked at Forbes if you are arguing against a hierarchy? Shouldn't your job and work at fashionista be enough support for your argument if you believe bloggers have a legitimate place? It is the very idea that anyone can just grow up and be a blogger that is deluding many young people into thinking that it's that easy.
Both traditional journalists and bloggers need to depart from their cocoons of complacent entitlement and realize that there is work to be done in their separate realms for the respect that they are currently trying to earn by attacking each other.
Lauren! If people disagree with your point, so be it. Stop using the comments sections to defend yourself. Your insecurity is palpable.
Also, check your grammar.
I'll add a third idea: bloggers who sit in the front row filling spaces left by journalists with zero travel budgets aren't journalist who write a news blog like yours or mine but net-celebrities.
They are there not to write about the show but to get photographed so the newspapers will talk about the “freak” front row (and how fashion journalism is changing) and, by the way, they will mention the designer. Most newspapers are just interested in who attends the show, at least that's what happens in Spain.
rather than embrace the new journalistic model me thinks that Menkes wants to keep her head buried in the sand. Her view is out dated as her hair.Correct that-her hair has never been in fashion
I think another issue is that the travel costs of the bloggers are often being paid for by PR firms. This is not acceptable practice in journalism, which means, at present, that journalists cannot attend certain events, and find their places filled by 'paid for' bloggers.
Actually Anna, right here you (inadvertently) make one of the strongest points for the new journalism, or blogging, or whatever we want to call it, that people like Lauren practice. You, like the vast majority of the country, seem to believe journalism can be objective. It can't. Beyond just the issue of Heisenberg's (misused) principle that you're influencing by observing – there's the fact that, as a journalist, you make endless hugely subjective choices. Do I want to write that story or that story? Interview that person or that person? Ask them that or that? Leave out that or that?
None of this is a bad thing necessarily, especially in the hands of amazingly responsiblepeople like Suzy Menkes. What IS a bad thing is if people think that there's some 'truth' being delivered by one of these journalists, because that's where we get mislead and start basing actions on “facts” where we're actually basing actions on one individual's thinking. (Probably not a huge deal if it leads to the purchase of the wrong purse – but a huge problem if it leads to a clamor for war, or the end of a public-option for healthcare.)
Another way of putting it: I don't mind that Fox News exists – well, I do, but I understand and defend those people's right to free speech. What I do mind is that it's dressed up as 'news,' which in turn is confused with 'facts.'
This is where a journalism based more heavily on blogging – which people more readily understand to be human, opinion-based and fallible – could be somewhat healthier for all of us.
I think respect is due in both situations. Suzy Menkes is a bit old and outdated, but she should respect the hustle of bloggers. As a blogger, I must say that noone works harder than a blogger to produce new content every day. That said, respect must also be given to Suzy who has been in the trenches for dozens of years. I'm a journalist who became a blogger, and I'd still love to learn from someone like Suzy–how to put together a piece, what to mention, what not to. Can you imagine working for her and letting her edit your work? But the truth of the matter is, journalism is unfortunately changing, so there are no positions to work for Suzy, and instead of long form, in depth fashion journalism, we're forced to feel around unguided and inexperienced, do what we like, and offer show reviews in sound bight form (there is value in this too, don't get me wrong). I wish there were a way for old and new to join forces…I'm sure there is. If people would put their defenses down for one second they could see that we actually have a lot to learn from each other and coming together versus fighting could produce tremendous results.
Hey guest. Lauren, Britt and Kate unashamedly write opinion based stuff, but they also break and report news. (As much as such a concept exists – see above argument.) The last two designers to go to Target, for example, were reported here first.
I also want to say something about it. I speak Spanish and German, I read almost all the blogger and all things internet in English with the help of google translator. The newspaper did not get that ….. and the way I buy it. I think the era of paper is running out, that's a reason why the fashion are Blogger, you hear, see photos, read something and you. Second, because not criticizing the authors of books, bestseller, written by people. I wanted to study journalism, which things did not happen by fate, and my conclusion is that any person who is not literate can write and perhaps be read, this is one of the striking profile of the blog. Of comment on here, the newspapers do not speak the designer, but who were, and designers to talk about the Celebridade they invite to charge a lot money, not even 0.1% of that was given to Blogistas, which also has its audience, an audience interested in the designer. So which is more attractive? invite a journalist or a blogista? you decide.
http://bienvestida.blogspot.com/
one note: fact-checking is really not what the public seems to think it is. i know this, because i've spent a lot of time inside of a few print publications (in fact, i used to sit next to one of the fact-checkers at a major US women's magazine), and believe me, fact-checking is more like Googling to find out whether Bananas Foster is possessive or not. it's really not what most people seem to think – nobody's contacting people Cathy Horyn has interviewed to ask, “did you really say that? are you sure?” Not only is it too much time (which equals money, which print doesn't have a whole lot of right now), but, depending on the subject matter, it would scare people into denying their quotes – and why in the world would you want to do that? so, my point: it's not what you think. therefore, blogs shouldn't have to hear all about “fact-checking” like as if they're skipping something pertinent, because if you consider what fact-checking really is, the more major blogs obviously do it.
Lauren, please know the difference between “its” and “it's.”
Yeah, it's things like this that make the whole blogger argument a lot less powerful.
i spot typos in newspapers and magazines all the time, even in books. the only thing that's different is that on a blog, people can point it out.
Newspaper errors are few and far between. there are grammatical errors in almost every post on this site, and shockingly, most are seventh grade errors written by the editors. I read this blog for fun; I'm not going to get my news from a site where the editors can't even write proper english.
That is actually how fact checking still works at some elite level print publications, like the New Yorker, for example.
“That” meaning calling people who've been interviewed to check quotes, etc.
Jonah, you might notice, I avoid the objective/subjective dichotomy. Nothing is completely objective, not any journalism–and I never said it was. I just said the personal wasn't the focus in more formalized pieces. I realize the presence of the individual in any piece, I am well aware of the invariable influence of the individual.
Cathy Horyn is distinct in her tone, her pieces are carry her stylistic marker, but when I wrote “I,” it was to not restrict it to the literal sense or a mere pronoun–this is where I seem to have been misunderstood. It was to point out that the blogging often functions as an “I” piece as opposed to the “eye” of a writer. This distinction is more subtle, and less bounded by problems of objectivity, although admittedly small biases are still at work.
Nor did I say blogging was bad, I just sympathized with Menkes' position. Even Horyn makes a distinction between her blog and her reviews, read her recent interview with style.com. She herself delineates different spaces for these two forms.
Of course typos happen all the time. I make them on a regular basis. No one's perfect! However, the copyediting on many (not necessarily all) blogs is pretty bad. For example, yesterday I read a post where Altuzarra was misspelled both times it was mentioned in the piece. I mean, when I was in journalism school, you automatically got an F for the assignment if you misspelled a proper noun. To get one wrong in your own industry seems even worse. It's those kinds of silly, easily avoidable mistakes that detract from credibility and make readers take you less seriously.
That said, I do love Fashionista and blogs in general. The mistakes really only bother me because I WANT them to be taken more seriously.
The above gripes about grammatical errors imply that one is not a journalist if their post/articles/media broadcast have errors. I feel that is a bit misguided! That seems to be a gripe with the copy editor or lack there of. I believe the initial complaint was that bloggers can still be journalists and that Lauren herself identifies herself as a journalist. Some of her pieces as for the other writers on this site are opinion based and sometimes chit chat amongst girls and to me thats what makes this a blog. Then some of her pieces are factual based pieces covering fashion related news (interviews, new designers, business issues within the fashion industry etc..) and that is journalism.
If the criteria for a journalist rests solely on grammatical acumen then some of the top journalists print and broadcast would not be able to consider themselves journalists! To me that doesn't make a whole lotta sense…but thats just me.
Speed is of the essence on a blog and so accuracy is sometimes sacrificed. I've edited enough print content to know that there are plenty of long-time journalists whose content would look laughably bad if it were published at the speed most of these (or other blog) posts are published. That leads some people to conclude, as you have, that this makes blog content less valuable (and as an old-school journo, part of me understands that). Others value the immediacy, personality, shareability (yes, I'm aware it's not a word, I was abusing the language for speed's sake) of this type of content. And it's hard to make conclusions about news value based on grammar and spelling. The China earthquake, the plane that went down in the Hudson… those things broke on Twitter. That's news, and I can't see how those breaks are less valuable because they arrived in 140 characters in broken English.
I'm wondering why you have a comma after shockingly and failed to capitalize either “there” or “English,” but it didn't stop me finding your comment engaging.
This sentence is missing a “Never” or a “not”.
Therefore I–nor anyone on our staff–would NEVER report on a show without seeing it.
I see your point and I see hers. Instead of posting something quickly, simply because you're fired up, proof reading prior to hitting “post” would give you a little more credibility.
Lauren, you make an excellent point. Overall digital media is the way of the future whether that is via blogging or traditional newspapers and magazines being completely digital.
However I think that until more bloggers start to up the quality of their game traditional journalists are going to continue to make this distinction. And to a certain extent their is validity to their argument.
Now by quality, I don't mean things that could be fixed by hiring a copy editor. What I mean is the creation of original content, preferably well written but that's subjective, that gives the blog a unique voice. For the most part, outside of the personal style blogs (which are only unique by default), I don't think there is enough push for differentiation amongst many of the more major players.
I honestly believe that once that starts to happen, and it eventually will, then all the huffing and puffing by old school journalists will begin to dissipate.
Also, not to kiss ass, but the addition of Lauren has been a tremendous boon to this site, as the quality (in terms of original, thought provoking content) has improved exponentially.
And what say you of your own grammatical errors? Who wants to read a comment by a person who doesn't believe in reciprocal standards?
You're being presumptuous. Not all bloggers are paid by a brand's PR. Not all bloggers have their traveling expenses paid. Please back your claim up with some facts.
I see Britt and Lauren in other cities, covering the many fashion weeks. I am not going to assume the PR of the brands or designer's they cover are paying them. Seems to me that Breaking Media is handling that.
I don't understand why people keep reducing the debate to a Horyn/Menkes vs. BryanBoy conflict. You are comparing the cream of the print crop to the… well… lower rung of the blog realm. What about Sarah Mower of Style.com? You cannot possibly make the argument that Mower's reviews are any less well-written, thoughtful, or informed than Horyn's and Menkes'. And what of Horyn's blog? Is the stuff that she posts there somehow of a lesser quality or less “journalistic” because it is not in the actual newspaper? Sometimes Horyn posts Q&As on her blog with important fashion industry figures–these are arguably more “newsy” or even “feature-y” than her reviews that are published in the Times proper.
And what is a blog anyway? I think as the media evolves and shift more toward the digital we will have to re-evaluate many of these terms. For example, what is Style.com? I wouldn't call it a blog. When is a website NOT a blog? And what even IS a blog? We would all agree that BryanBoy's and Tavi's websites are blogs (and as I have written previously, I'm a fan of Tavi), but what about Fashionista? JC Report? Refinery 29? Style.com?
I obviously know how to capitalize; I just don't think it's necessary for a blog post comment. I'm also not claiming to be a reputable journalist.
You addressed the beginning to Lauren so I am not sure if you meant to reply to me. But…reproducing content on fashion news blogs, is not in my opinion the determining factor of the sites uniqueness. One because Fashionista.com does produce original content. Second, the content that is replicated is cited openly. So I can't distinguish the difference from Fashionista.com replicating content from WWD.com or Fashionologie.com and USA Today using a replicating content from the AP. For me its kinda goes back to its not what you say its how you say it…and I think Fashionista.com has created an identity amongst its contributors which is unique.
When I think of Suzy's hairdo, I think of this…
http://www.impawards.com/1994/posters/ace_ventu…
Lauren, you write for Fashionista. The majority of the writing here is rewritten press releases. It is not journalism.
I've worked in print for 11 years and we only allow our fact-checkers to Google if they are using the subjects' own web page for spelling verification. Ninety percent of the time our fact-checkers (at every mag I've worked at) call the sources on the phone.
Also, the first rule of fact-checking is you never, ever fact-check quotes, only factual information within quotes. But I agree with you that people working outside of journalism don't often understand that.
This is really great conversation (minus a few cynical meanies). The only thing I'd like to add specifically to Lauren is that I think the general perception of a blogger is not Fashionista. Meaning, I don't think the average person would lump you and this site in with the 50,000 unpaid people with free Blogger accounts. This site obviously has financial backing; I assume you guys are all paid salaries. Menkes is probably referring more to unpaid, untrained bloggers when she uses that term. I wouldn't be so quick to be offended. I'm 39—probably out of your target age-range—and I think you guys do an excellent, very professional job of reporting on fashion. Fashionista is technically a blog, but it's not, say, Tavi (no offense, Tavi—I like you, too!)
I couldn’t agree with your more Miten.
I'm not being presumptuous. I'm speaking from experience, and I didn't say “all bloggers are paid.” I said “often.” I also did not say this blog's authors receive paid trips. Please back up your defensiveness with careful reading.
I got the impression Menkes was referring to the fact that print journalist are NOT GIVEN travel budgets, I felt she was criticizing those that held the purse strings, not the writers themselves.
As a newspaper journalist, I am witnessing first-hand what is going on in the industry all over the world (I'm mostly based in Europe): newspapers are slowly dying down. People prefer reading the stories online because they are updated regularly and the writing is simpler, hence more appealing. There is a also a lot more content. Staff writers are encouraged to have blogs. I am currently on sabbatical and have just started a blog and I can testify that it has a lot more reach, and even “power”, than my print articles ever garnered.
Journalism is changing and we just change with it, especially in an age where there are dramatic cuts. These writers are turning to blogging – because that's what they know how to do: write.
And in answe to A.Cat.Lady, even print journalism relies heavily on press releases. It's how you report the content. A press release is just a bait and you have to know how to take it further. It's a perfectly normal part of journalism and I think Fashionista does a great job.
Taline–you perfectly described what I’ve experienced over the last few months. Thank you!
Now, see this is a journalist fashionista should have tea with. I’m also very glad you pointed-out how even print journalist rely on press releases. I think the most people aren’t clued-in on how similar some bloggers are to print journalist. I love to see all journalist embracing blogging. I think the two can work together without the constant competition. I also think it’s perfectly fine for print journalist to demand that bloggers step-up their game. As we all know not all bloggers are created equally and I read Fashionista because of their voice and professionalism.
Wait, so you can point-out grammatical errors on here and make a claim how this distinguishes print from online journalist, but didn't think it was necessary to capitalize? And so what you're not “claiming” to be a journalist, your comments are representative of you on some level no?
Also, Lauren isn't CLAIMING to be a journalist. The woman holds a BFA in writing (I googled her) and was a journalist for Forbes. Last I check that pretty much solidifies that she's one, even if she does have a few grammatical errors. But since your own personal standards don't match what you expect, excuse me while I ignore you.
Oh, so wait you take hand-outs or give them? IF so, then you're highly unethical and the very reason why Ms. Menkes feels the way she does.
Also, you surely didn't qualify your statement. You said “bloggers are often paid”, that's a very generalized statement, thus my response, which was not defensive. Where is the “some” in your sentence? Is that careful enough reading for you? <– Now, you can say I'm being cheeky or snarky, psychic of emotions behind comments.
Again I agree. I'd like to have some dialogue on what constittues a blog and what doesn't? I think of blogs as Tavi and Bryanboy. I don't see any of the websites you named as blogs and I bet they don't either. I mean style.com has blogs on the website but it seems they don't think of themselves JUST as a blog. But at the end of the day does any of this matter if we find joy in all of them?
This post is filed under “rants”, which I take to mean a personal opinion/view. People on here that are being nasty need to get a grip.
Just wanted to point out that the IHT has been “the global edition of the new york times” since the times took over in 2003 and had been publishing times content long before that… it’s always been a sort of patchwork paper…
I wouldn't call Sarah Mower's pieces on Style.com “reviews.
Print journalists gasped at the idea that there was going to be no more printed newspapers forever as more and more subscribers and readers visit their newspaper's website. These journalists also have to face that as we're moving more progressively into the future, the medium of online communication will be vast and used to a large extent. However, there is great irregularities between a news blogger and a journalist. I have YET to see a blog with the kind of distinguished writing about fashion as of course such as the The New York Times or various print magazines. They do their job very well. Now since blogging has grown tremendously and harnessing it with the fashion media, every website now wants validity. All I can see is that it's a copy and a copy and a copy of an original. I mean why on earth am I writing on this website for example? Britt, you seem to confuse yourself. Not every average joe blogger is a journalist and how can you hold each blogger who writes about fashion accountable? You see my point? Every single website that I have seen who aren't of newspapers and media organisations are the online equivalent to FOX news.