For “The (Blogala) Record”.

A couple of things.
-I did not say “And I’m not just saying that because I got to pee on Stage 5 of the Warner Bros. lot where Julia Louis-Dreyfus might also pee between takes!” Liz said it in her post about the taping.
-I did not say that I was “inundated with free stuff”. I said that I am inundated with OFFERS for free stuff and that I have turned the offers down because I do NOT want my content to turn into a “today, I made ::insert name brand biscuits here:: for dinner and mmmmm they were delicious and hey! have you entered their recipe contest yet?” blog**. When I do write about any type of products on this blog, (which is hardly ever) it is because it is a product that I am in love with, ((OMG! Fabric Softener!) that I bought with my (husband’s hard earned) money and want the entire world to know about them(OMG! Oxiclean!). I also said that yes, I do have ads on my side bar and am not opposed to that in any way, but that’s because I do not have to change my content or write product reviews on the ads placed there.
-That said, if anyone ever starts handing out free Starbucks gift cards or Laker tickets, I’m ALL OVER THAT.
-Blogola? HAHA.
-Unfortunately, I did say “it was totally rad” in reference to my visit to the set of Old Adventures of New Christine. What can I say? I am a dork and you all know this.
-I sign all of my emails with “xoxo”.
-I did the interview with the cast of New Adventures of Old Christine because I thought it would be an great experience (hello? When you get a chance to talk with Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Wanda Sykes, you freaking TAKE IT.)
-I was not pressured to write anything that I didn’t want to write about my experience or the show itself. I wrote whatever I wanted to write and no one told me to do otherwise. I don’t deny that they used me to help promote the show. I mean, DUH, that was the whole point. But, no one told me that I had to write good things about the show or my experience.
-I hope my parents don’t read the WSJ. But if they do, um, today is going to be TOTALLY RAD!
And finally
-I finally gots me my own internet connection. Let the blogging resume!
**not that there’s anything wrong with that.

(If you’re all “what the hell is she talking about?” Um, I did an interview for the Wall Street Journal that was supposed to be “about how bloggers are turning into an important component of promotion for TV shows.” –exact quote from The Reporter– But instead turned into a story about how “Y can be bought with free products!)
(Oh! AND it ran on the FRONT PAGE. NOT cool.)
*Shakes fists* I was MISLEAD! Ha! Ha!
Anyway, this is the last that I’ll ever write about it because I don’t take myself seriously enough to care too much. Also? I’m too chicken shit for this kind of stuff.
(Which is why I’m not linking the story. Am scared. Hold me.)

66 thoughts on “For “The (Blogala) Record”.

  1. ishouldbeworking

    (hug) Don’t be scared. We love you & know you can’t be bought for free products…
    Happy Dance for you having your own internet again – that’s totally RAD!
    Let the stories of boinking and bean dip resume:)

  2. Amy

    Lady, LINK THE STORY! YOu should be proud, not apologetic. One of the (many) fantastic things about this blog is that you DON’T link to your “reviews blog!” or talk about how you are writing over here, or over there or blah blah blah Look at me, I’m making money off this!
    If anyone deserves to be written up by WSJ, it’s you, and not some of those other bloggers who prostrate themselves for anyone who will give them a nickel.

  3. Selfmademom

    Yvonne!! My mother in law just called me about this article. I’m totally impressed. And I think you came off terrific for the article. Congrats!! A photo in the Wall Street Journal. You are too cool.

  4. Y

    Thanks so much, you guys.
    I’m just a chicken about this kind of stuff. I was reluctant to do it, but then, I’m reluctant about EVERYTHING because I am a chicken (did I mention I am a chicken? balk BALK) and decided to do it because I need to get over all of my hangups and fears blahblah.
    (If I had known it would be on the front page, I would have said NO. Because, I’m a chicken! CHIIIIIIICKEN!)

  5. GraceD

    It was fun seeing your beautiful face done up in the Wall Street Journal illustrated portraiture.
    There was a condescending tone in this piece. I suppose the reporter was obliged to frame your upbeat persona and blog style as fluff and frivolity, this being the crotchety WSJ. (Crotchety = dried corncob up the butt).
    It’s all part of the dismissive, superior-ass attitude most journalists have towards bloggers.
    I think you’re marvelous and am happy to get my dose of Y anyway I can, whether in print, on my monitor or in person.

  6. Kyla

    You know what? I actually started watching NAOOC after reading about the RAD interviews…and we are really enjoying it. So here’s a big fat thanks! My life was lacking a certain sitcom facet since Friends went off air. It is nice to have light, fluffy TV again.
    Link, please? Pretty please? With bean dip on top? You can email it to me if you’d rather.
    Kyla *lol*

  7. Brandi

    So, of course, the first thing I did after reading this entry was trot on over to WSJ Online. That is so awesome, Y. Be proud, Chica. How many of us can say we’ve had the opportunity?

  8. Paula

    Kinda tells us something about reading the news… much is true and how much is slanted whatever way they want the article to go?????
    It would be nice if the WSJ would let you personally write a P.S. to the story like you just did on this site.

  9. Maya

    i just read the article. i found it by searching google news for “yvonne joy unexpected.”
    congratulations on getting interviewed – i think that’s really cool, yvonne. but the article sounded to me like journalists are jealous because they don’t get free cool stuff.
    but maybe i’m just biased toward bloggers.

  10. SusieJ

    I’m here because I do read the WSJ everyday, and saw you! I love that paper, and I’m glad you outlined what you did say, and how it was twisted by the WSJ. Very interesting. But, I did not think the article was condescending — I thought it was a well done look at how the promotion channels are changing, and taking a look at how it is already happening. If anything, you, and other bloggers, look, as if we have more power than anyone realized. And, your photo was gorgeous, by the way. I’m with Amy. Link the story, it’s something to be proud of.

  11. Marriage-101

    You are on the freaking front page of the Wall Street Journal! YOUR PICTURE is on the FRONT PAGE of the WALL STREET JOURNAL!!!! You are now my hero. As if you weren’t already. 😉

  12. dana michelle

    Holy Schmokes. The WSJ!!!!!
    Totally gorgeous picture of you, Y! I can see where you’re sweating bullets about your parents finding out about your blog. They did everything but hand out the web address.
    And since I’ve been reading you for about 5 years now (wow- has it really been that long?) I can say “I read you when…” long before you became a bigshot newspaper headliner.
    Frick – the WSJ!!!!!!!! 8^}

  13. sarcastic journalist

    Yvonne Marie….related to Constance Marie the actress? You’re totally smoking, even if you are such a BLOGOLA product whore. I bet you’d take some free cans of bean dip, as well.

  14. Karly

    Ms. Marie? You rock. The FREAKING WSJ! Although if I were you I would be very frightened about yo mama finding out! ITS THE FREAKING WSJ! :)

  15. Mom101

    Oh stop being so modest. You know you wrote that line and gave it to me for my blog. You also know that every other post here is pimping some crappy packaged good or another. Sheesh, I mean, what do you think, your readers don’t notice how often you’re always telling us to buy Turtle Wax and Dr Scholls’ gel pads and new improved Hamburger Helper, now with more Helper?

  16. Jennifer

    Your parents are SO gonna find out about your blog. Your picture is on the WSJ website. If they don’t read it you know that someone who knows them does.
    Totally Rad. ROFL!

  17. Betsy

    Front page of the WSJ! Way to go Y! I read the WSJ and your blog every day; interesting to see how your quotes were out of context. I didn’t think the piece was condescending though; more pointing to how the power of media and advertising mediums have shifted. Of course “they” wanted you to write up the show…that’s why they invited you. Duh. I hope your parents don’t read the WSJ, although they should be very proud of you!

  18. Operation Pink Herring

    Oh, Google News is different than Google. I get it now. Thanks to Maya for posting the exact search terms or I would have been sitting here ALL NIGHT trying to find that damned article.
    Y, it didn’t come across as saying YOU can be bought. It did come across as saying bloggers can be bought. Then again, they did say that blogs are starting to compete with traditional newspapers, and what is the WSJ? A traditional paper? So I think there might be just a teensy bias.
    If anyone really thought you just wrote what people told you to in exchange for free stuff, no one would be reading! We’d all be home Tivo-ing commercials instead.
    Major props to you for such a huge interview!

  19. ombra

    this post is reason number 734,627,921,703.4 why I am glad that I’ve kept up with your blog for so long. I think actually I’ve read your blog longer than anyone else’s, now that I think of it.
    Very rad, indeed!!!

  20. Matthew M. F. Miller

    You’ve been outed, but let me say – they will eat it up.
    On my blog yesterday, I wrote about my my mother-in-law reading about such things as me icing my testicles (we’re infertile – not something I do for kicks, people!) for the first time on mother’s day – turns out, she LOVED it and was so happy to be let in.

  21. Sara

    DuHUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE. You’re like, famous. And gorgeous! Which I already knew.
    And p.s.? I totally brought up Eric Nies today at work (talking about how I used to watch RW-RR challenges on MTV and hahaha did y’all ever notice how Eric Nies was still on there after like 47 seasons, and they were all “Who is Eric Nies?” And I was all “…um…WHERE IS MY INTERNET FRIEND, Y?” I couldn’t believe they didn’t know.

  22. julianna

    Oh, no worries! The people who love you totally do not care about these things :) But if you did score free stuff, you so have to tell us about it. And show us! Because who doesn’t love free stuff?

  23. Lisa

    Wow, front page of the WSJ…can I have your autograph? *stands back in awe*
    Glad you’ve got your own internet back now! I know you’re loving it!

  24. Andrea

    WOW, Y!! Yet more evidence on why we all love you. I did start reading your post tonight thinking “WTF??” but now I’m just proud, proud, proud of you! Woohooooo!!! Validation feels good, eh? :)

  25. Gift of Green

    As I said on when she mentioned your mention, as the old Elaine would say, “Get OUT!!!!!” Need to find that article. Congrats!

  26. Amy the Mom

    I was pretty freaking shocked to see your face right below the fold of my morning paper-you looked smashing! I agree with a previous poster-I didn’t think the article implied any wrongdoing. And really? Who even gives a shit-you made the front page of the WALL STREET JOURNAL and you look MARVELOUS!

  27. sassy

    1) That picture was was awesome! Way to go Y!
    2) I would totally write a letter to the editor and correct everything they screwed up. Especially since they are the fancy schmanzy paper with editors and fact checkers! But I’m like that.

  28. anonodick

    I am TOTALLY NOT SAYING THIS to be snarky because I think you have an awesome blog and you’re a beautiful woman but I’m being anon (although you can guess who I am) just in case I sound like a jerk. Which I probably will because I can’t figure out how to word this properly.
    The photo of you is gorgeous– was it one you submitted or did they just choose it from your blog or something? Because it doesn’t seem like a very “Wall Street Journal Serious Interviewee” photo, more a “Hey, look at this lady who is all excited about being inundated with free stuff” photo.

  29. Kristie

    Sounds to me like the writer of the WSJ article was coming from the angle that he (she?) realizes bloggers are now getting a piece of action *they* are no longer getting, and is jealous of you. So, I found it interesting that first they mention there are rules prohibiting any gift more than $25, then threw that line in there about “since traditional reporters won’t accept expensive gifts” (I’m totally paraphrasing) — won’t, or can’t? Like newspaper reporters are this pious, moral-ed, unpurchasable group, which anyone who reads any kind of media knows is total malarky.
    While I’m thrilled for you, and think the photo was smoking hot, I do think the overall tone of the piece was one of an aging prom queen who is jealous as hell that the younger, cooler generation is showing up to the party, invitation in hand.
    KWIM? But I’m still thrilled for you. :)

  30. sarcastic JOURNALIST

    @ Kristie: I feel I must defend the reporters. While I do believe that too many screw things up (ahem) and misquote…they’re just doing their job.
    As for taking gifts, that could get you in a really big heap of trouble. If you’re taking gifts from Wal-Mart and then two weeks write a positive story that ends up on the front page of a major paper…there goes your credibility.
    Most newspapers have policies set up regarding this exact issue, while most bloggers don’t. How many blogs have I been to where someone is more than happy to promote free swag? TOO MANY.
    Yes, there are some reporters who are ticked that bloggers are getting attention. But, as many papers are starting to have their own blogs…they’re obviously embracing this new medium.
    My issue with Y’s story are the misquotes. Use a stinking tape recorder and then back up everything with hand written notes. In this day and age of technology, there’s no reason to be misquoting.

  31. Shane

    The ethics of blogging and communication are so low this year. If I give you $10 will you pump my porn site?
    Nice work Mommy…..

  32. AA

    Oh Y, start planning damage control now. Your parents will definitely know about your blog now. Someone will tell them. I am just upset because I am afraid you will change your style or topics if you know your parents can find it. Please don’t. Give us all passwords or something! I read a lot mroe than I post and I would miss you terribly. You are one of the few blogs I have not tired of or, gotten jealous of, or sick of when they changed to arrogant, self centered bloggers after awhile.
    Can you be honest with your parents and tell them that really for the good of your relationship with them they should not read it. I am not going to say you should jsut not worry about it and be a grwon up and now care what they say– that’s unrealistic. I would have avoided it as long as possible too. My mom has no idea I have a blog and mine says basically nothing and is boring as hell.

  33. girl

    what i think is awsome is that some people we know are seething with jealousy.
    and it makes me laugh…*right here*

  34. norm

    I want you to know that you are the only reason I would ever visit the Wall Street Journal. That said, hot picture. Yow.

  35. Jen

    Wow!!! Congrats on the WSJ piece!! I second Norm, I’ve never read a Wall Street Journal article – UNTIL NOW.

  36. demondoll

    Hey- I just read the WSJ article, and saw your gorgeous pic! Thank you for clearing those things up, cuz I remember when you wrote about New Christine, and thought you were pretty biz as usual, no extra nicies just becuz…

  37. Mariella

    Hola, great site here :) I am looking for fans of celebs all over the world. If you have any sexy clips with someone, i will appreciate your help :)

    In exchange I can upload some top hottest stuff from my archive here.
    Regards! Waiting for links with good stuff, and free of course :)

Comments are closed.