Zombies, Trekkies and jerks

My friend  Maddie (well, one of my friends named Maddie, I've got at least two) wrote an article for the Globe and Mail, as she's wont to do, this time about Speed Dating at the fanexpo.

The article can be found here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/dressed-up-and-looking-for-love/article4510463/

I was quite excited when I heard she'd be doing this.. well, because I thought it'd be cool! Fanexpo? That's a thing I like! Speed dating? Ooo, lurid!

Now that I've finally read it, I did indeed enjoy it- it could have used more space and description (but I'm theoretically into Gonzo journalism, disregarding even the idea of biasless reporting, though it's a fine sublime goal to strive for) however I'm well aware of the kind of space constraints that are imposed on writers for these kinds of things. Secondly, if you aren't capturing the essence of an event that someone may have been interested in experiencing for themselves (my philosophy for the best kind of reporting, at least for cultural events and life style pieces), then your article is likely to be the kind that attempts to answer some question, whether or not any real question was asked in the first place.

Wow, yes, run on sentence much? But yeah, I tend to be annoyed by the kind of ending flourishes that suggest some new wisdom gained by the experience. To steal a great Simpsons line: Lisa - "Maybe there is no moral here." Homer - "EXACTLY, it's just a bunch of stuff that happened!"

The comments for the article, a historically rough place to visit, are generally unfair. I know, I know, big surprise. The one guy who suggested that Maddie be ashamed for giving hopes to some random dudes, manipulating them for an article, is especially off base because, as some other commentor noted, dude, it's a 3 minute speed date, not a proposal! (I've completely paraphrased here, not to mention my complicated usage of commas and, again, run on sentence)

While there may have been a case against the article on the basis that Maddie has taken a seat from someone that would have used it in the spirit of the event, that doesn't hold up. Yes, men were cut from the event, but no word on women getting cut.. probably for lack of numers. In which case, Maddie's presence allowed one extra guy to get in and meet all the other people there. That's not even counting the free publicity for the even via this article, in which case Maddie's was a "seed seat" for the future. (wow, there's... something very wrong with that turn of phrase)

The accusation of manipulation is an unfair one to level at her. Not that it necessarily doesn't apply, but it's an issue with reporting as a profession in general. True, she could have wasted time from the 3 minute dates (or 30 seconds, I forget how long they were, 3 minutes sounds right) to explain her situation, but that would alter the results of her experience. So too with a straight interview with people leaving the speed dating event. As an anonymous attendee, her's was a pefectly valid avenue to pursue her article. If you have a problem with reporters in general, maybe it's hypocritical to hang out at the globe and mail website.

I'm way behind on my postings, so I better get on to another one.