Via our brave Petite Anglaise, I discovered that Rue Rude got a mention in the Nouvel Observateur last week, albeit in the slightly ignominious television supplement. The reporter had asked me if I thought Petite was telling the truth about her dismissal, and I had answered that lack of candor was not Petite's problem. The reporter got all the facts in my cited post wrong (the day was not July 14th, but the 11th of August; the Champs-Elysées was not closed to traffic, but reduced to one lane each way; I was not paniquée, but simply asked a policewoman for information). She was probably working from memory. But as they say, there's no such thing as bad publicity. Merci, Lise Martin.
I am doing this for immortality, yes! But not for fame. I am an early-medievalist at heart and love the idea of anonymously helping to build a beautiful structure (the Web).
Congrats! Tried to read the article, but it's payant....
From Sedulia: Petite Anglaise has a scan of it here:
http://www.petiteanglaise.com/archives/2006/11/02/impertinent/
Posted by: samantha | 11 November 2006 at 11:31
Interesting...
I used to do illustration for the New York Times and got an inside view of how biased and mistaken they often were.
Interesting how these highly respected and revered rags get things wrong way more times than we know or suspect.
Posted by: ParisBreakfasts | 12 November 2006 at 12:17
Hi Sedulia !
What was it Sedulia said, one day, when Amerloque emailed her some time ago ? (grin)
"Reporters twist things, especially quotes, so you have to be very careful what you say."
CQFD. La boucle est bouclée. (smile)
Anyway, this all looks to be like more proof (mirabile dictu) that the Nouvel Obs crowd lives in La-La-Land, somewhere over the rainbow, on cloud nine.
If they can't get this right, it's no surprise, really, to hear them nattering about on pourquoi ca va mal. (sigh)
Best
L'Amerloque
Posted by: L'Amerloque | 12 November 2006 at 21:01