NewsBreakingOnline

When a TechCrunch writer posted ‘snarky’ remarks about Source Code’s marketing, the studio wasn’t impressed. So what? Reader, prepare yourself: Someone on the internet thinks Source Code looks silly. Source Code, of course, is a movie that premiered at South by Southwest last weekend, and which stars Jake Gyllenhaal as a man who must relive a train wreck over and over again, in the hope of changing its outcome. The last time you saw this movie, it was a comedy called Groundhog Day, and it starred Bill Murray and a remarkably unrealistic groundhog puppet who could drive a car. This time, however, the time loop is achieved with futuristic technology rather than mystical rodent curses, and as far as the Summit Entertainment studio is concerned, jokes should not be allowed anywhere near it. Consider Alexia Tsotis, a TechCrunch blogger called upon to cover the movie’s premiere. Her piece focused on the movie’s marketing, described as a “cross-platform, trans-media campaign” involving “social media game play”. This amounts to asking people to promote the movie on Facebook; Tsotis noted that, and joked about it, calling the above-quoted hype a “buzzwordgasm”. At which point, the trans-media cross-platform marketers at Summit found a whole new use for the internet: contacting AOL, the company that owns TechCrunch, to suggest that Tsotis change her piece. The email from MovieFone – the AOL-run film blog that Summit contacted – is apologetic. “Wanted to raise a concern that Summit had about the piece,” it says. “They felt it was a little snarky and wondered if any of the snark can be toned down?” It concludes on a similarly uncomfortable note: “If you have good reasons not to change anything that’s fine, I just need to get back to Summit.” One pities the sender. Especially since Tsotis published the email after receiving it. MovieFone defends its actions , but it had every reason to know it was doing something wrong. It wasn’t Summit’s place to demand changes; nor was it MovieFone’s place to imply that TechCrunch needed “good reasons” not to make them. The “good reason” they had to keep the piece intact was simple: Tsotis was paid to write a blog post, not to write ad copy for Summit. And she definitely wasn’t answerable to Summit’s concerns about, of all things, her sense of humour. Summit is not alone in its concerns. Most criticisms of internet writing centre on its tone. It is undeniably true that “snark” – the single most irritating new word of the past 20 years, given that it means “sarcasm”, which we already have a word for – does predominate, in some circles. It’s an easy way to convey that your target might be silly or inconsequential. It can be cruel; it’s undeniably unpleasant to work hard on something and to have it dismissed with a nasty joke. But one suspects that Summit’s response is less about hurt feelings than about the fact that negative coverage might affect its bottom line. Which somewhat relieves one’s sentimental concerns. And it’s also true that bloggers are frequently called upon to cover extremely silly and inconsequential things. To discuss the bold new marketing innovation of “making people talk about a movie on Facebook” with a straight face, especially when that movie is a Groundhog Day remake with slightly more train explosions, is a bit too much to ask for. Without at least some acknowledgment of the ridiculousness at hand, the writer risks turning in an article that is little more than a press release. Without snark, Tsotis’s piece wouldn’t be cruel. It would be something even worse: boring. SXSWi Blogging SXSW Festivals Digital media Internet United States Sady Doyle guardian.co.uk