Isn't he PLAYING a white actor who puts on blackface for the role? He's not actually playing a black guy, but a white guy pretending to be a black guy. I think it's part of the joke.

Yes, but it's too subtle for American audiences. Most of whom are going to say: huh huh, Robert Downey Junior played a black dude. Huh.

"Downey Jr plays a worthy Oscar-winning actor taking on a role originally written for a black actor, and rather than re-write the part, he goes method."

He and the producers can intellectualize it all he likes but it's irresponsible and, as I mentioned, demeaning to black people.

Then maybe that's for African-American audiences to decide.

Yes, it's a joke. They are not making fun of black people, they are making fun of method actors who go to extremes. I bet people don't get that. Speaking of people who don't get jokes, go to http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/ and read the comments. People leave angry comments because they think it makes fun of black people, but it really makes fun of white people who think they are "down" with black people.

I guess good jokes fall flat on dumb people.

The Wayans Brothers.

"Then maybe that's for African American audiences to decide."

Why? Because they get to decide so many other factors about the way movies are produced? Because their voice is over-represented in positions of power within the movie industry? Because we're totally at a point in American history where drug addict white actors can make money out of joking at black people's expense?

Do please enlighten me.

"They are not making fun of black people, they are making fun of method actors who go to extremes. I bet people don't get that."

Wrong. They're saying they are making fun of method actors who go to extremes. What they're REALLY doing is making fun of black people. They just can't say so, because you can't pull the sambo shit these days and sell movie tickets...

Because people of African-American heritage are capable of deciding for themselves whether or not they find something offensive.

That would be all the people of African-American heritage currently writing for this newspaper, with an active voice on Blogtown, Woo?

You're full of shit mate.

Woo, that's much like saying that using the word "nigger" is fine as long as your black friend says its okay - or, as long as you're never around African American people, which seems to be your case.

As for the film, it's simply not possible to take such a premise anywhere but into minstrel show territory, despite the self-reflexive nature of the piece.

No, I'm saying that speaking for a group or individuals without knowing what they actually have to say is a disservice. If and when African-Americans have an opinion about the movie, by all means report it. Just don't create an opinion for people before they have a chance to voice one on their own.

I have never met a black person, but I bet they smell like cinnamon.

Is that true?

Robert Downey rises above sh%it. He is fully qualified to do whatever he wants.

I'm a black woman and feel I should jump in on this. Personally, no one in my family would be offended by this, just as no one at the Mercury was offended when "White Chicks" was released. Robert is a terrific actor and I'm looking forward to seeing how he plays this roll. Thank you for starting the conversation on this, Matt, but these people are right: leave this one up to the black community to decide if it's racist or not.

Feel free to jump to all the conclusions you like, but I'd suggest watching to goddamn movie before you start spouting off, jeez. Demeaning to black people...really? I'd say not a single one of you has actually asked a black person about this and explained the movie premise, which I have a feeling people are a little fuzzy about anyway.

They're remaking Tootsie?

"Leave this one up to the black community to decide if it's racist or not."

No. Ever heard of internalized oppression?

Did I miss the blog post where Matt threw a tantrum about how offended he was with "White Chicks?" I don't remember reading it, but surely it must be here somewhere.

No, it's here. I've written about everything that ever happened in the world. Search our archives.

You guys (Matt & Becca) are getting all worked up over nothing. It's Friday after all - have a PBR, sammich and STFU.

Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall. Nuff said.

I think Matt Davis was working for some WSJ of merry ol' England when White Chicks came out. And yes, what demeans a group of people is defined by that group of people. You can't dupe an entire ethnicity into being made a fool. As Prez Lincoln said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

I take that back. I haven't said enough.

What is it about this that is demeaning? The role, as written, requires this. A black man would have to "white up" to pull it off and that would be stupid because the makeup is going in the wrong direction.

This whole thread smacks of white liberal guilt. Get over your fucking selves.

Jack Black playing blonde. Now that's just wrong!

"This whole thread smacks of white liberal guilt."

Clearly. But it's also another example of Matt going lowest-common-denominator in order to get a reaction out of people, which it is doing, and honestly, it's a fairly amusing way to pass a few minutes on an otherwise boring Friday afternoon.

I'm a black woman and feel I should jump in on this. Personally, no one in my family would be offended by this, just as no one at the Mercury was offended when "White Chicks" was released. Robert is a terrific actor and I'm looking forward to seeing how he plays this roll. Thank you for starting the conversation on this, Matt, but these people are right: leave this one up to the black community to decide if it's racist or not.

so: you can't do anything in a movie that a racist would do, else you yourself be called a racist?

ed norton in american history x...racist.

driving miss daisy...racist.

to kill a mockingbird...racist.

if you think robert downey's character in this film is going to be anything other than a big, self-important, white buffoon in this picture, i don't know what to tell you. HE'S NOT GOING TO BE THE HERO.

Matt,

See the movie before you jump to all your conclusions. What I said is just my guess based on what I read in the original article about the film. Making fun of method actors really sounds like their intentions. Now if I go to the movie and feel like they missed their intention and are really just making fun of black people, I'll eat crow. But I will see the movie before I assume they are going to miss that intention.

I didn't post that twice. Weird how it reposts if you submit from an iphone. I agree, though; Matt is a self-righteous twit who strokes his own ego in search of a reaction. I doubt more than 10 readers take any of his poorly written, paranoid rants seriously. I would never bother with Blogtown PDX if it weren't for Amy's great political coverage.

Here's the plan. Take a black dude to the show just so that he can show you how to act later. It'll be just like in the movie 'Bamboozled', just watch to see if the black people laugh first and gauge your reactions by it and then mimic their responses.

Oddly enough, Downey was awesome in the movie Bamboozled! He played a fake Geraldo Rivera running down the news story of a black man who would be executed for being black while doing a black-face routine for lots of money, so I'm really looking forward to this movie!

Oh, and if you can't see the humor in any of this, then you've just GOT to see 'Bamboozled'!

I'm the only black person I know in this town, so speaking for myself, I don't find this any more offensive than a white person who thinks they should look out for my interests because I am black. Hey, but thanks for the effort though. I really, really appreciate it.

What was it that the old Benny Hill skit said? I believe it was:

"Don't assume, because when you assume, it makes an ASS out of U and ME . . . "

Smart man that Benny Hill.

Really though, it's pretty hard to buy into the thought that they could not have found a black actor for this. I mean Downey is pretty good, but he's never really been in demand. Well, unless you needed someone to act a junkie like in 'Less Than Zero'...

Things White People Like #350: Getting upset over Things They Assume Black People Don't Like.

Things Black People like #351 : Watching White People Go 3x tarded over Things They Assume Black People Don't Like

Ooohhh...cliches.

Me too, here -

"Well, you can't beat a dead horse with an old dog".

Right? Who's on board?

I'm telling you, Matt is the Mercury's own Howard Stern. If he writes a post that people like, no one comments. If he pisses you off, his post gets lots of comments. This man can push buttons...

Matt Davis is a lot better looking than Howard Stern.

Well of course....

I really don't care all that much about this. I suspect the movie will be as offensive as I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry: tasteless but vapid.

But someone has to side with Matt once in a while, right?

Angelina's right. Plus:

"I agree, though; Matt is a self-righteous twit who strokes his own ego in search of a reaction. I doubt more than 10 readers take any of his poorly written, paranoid rants seriously. I would never bother with Blogtown PDX if it weren't for Amy's great political coverage."

I echo this sentiment. Amy's political coverage is indeed brilliant. But apart from being an ego-stroking, poor-writing, paranoid and guilty white liberal, I stll feel that this film is demeaning to black people.

The only reason you're all so apoplectic is because you know I'm right, but you're trying to show how totally unfettered you are by race issues, how progressive you are and up with the zeitgeist. Well get this: The zeitgeist is racist, folks. Always has been.

To satisfy my curiosity, I do now plan to take a black person to see the movie when it comes out. We will compare notes on our views of the movie's respective racism. Any volunteers? (You must be black. I only have one black friend and he doesn't fancy it.) 503 294 0840.

matt:

you seem to have prejudged this movie pretty severely. are you saying that blackface (and any mention thereof) is per se racist? in that case, isn't your post SHOWING blackface, you know, racist?

You're getting apoplectic and passing judgment on something you haven't even seen yet? Hmm, no different than me then. You could make it big one day with that approach, Davis. Need an internship?

Now, where are my pills?

I stole 'em, Rush. Watch your back.

Awesome Matt. After you find another Black friend that is willing to screen this movie with you, we'll all be looking forward to a nice feature piece from you. Good luck, and good times.

Don't you know you're racist simply because you're white, Matt?

Who says racist doesn't mean anything anymore?

""Leave this one up to the black community to decide if it's racist or not."

No. Ever heard of internalized oppression?"

Matt, we're all accustomed to your usual attention-seeking douchebaggery, but that statement is truly disgusting. I hope you feel like a true imperial gentleman when you speak the truth that these savages can't. You and this statement are both vile.

Quick! Somebody call Al Sharpton! He'll know how we should feel.

Wait a sec, did Hillary's crew doctor that photo on the left?

Isn't Matt the one who wrote a few weeks ago that he'd only met one black person in Portland? Methinks it is time to get out of your hipster office, my friend, and meet some people of color.

Y'know, this has the makings of a great cultural piece of work for you Matt. Just think. You could make a new Black friend and enjoy a great cultural exchange over dinner, drinks and a Robert Downey Jr. movie. After that, we could all watch Blazing Saddles together and finally get along.

Matt,

What do you make of this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu1TZVX72Aw

Funny or demeaning?

Not to, like, point out the obvious and everything, but I think it's going to be damned hard to get "the black people" to agree on this one way or the other. As a white person, I say with some surety that we don't all share a common viewpoint on the debate Matt's proposed. And maybe, just maybe, that's far and away the most racist thing about all of this-- the assumption that "the black people" will decide how they feel about it as one massive block. It's like you're saying that Morgan and Evan and Matt can be individuals with their opinions, but Jermaine and Jamal and Barack can't. Because all black people like basketball and hip-hop but white people disagree on the merits of tennis and the Olive Garden. I mean, hey white guy pointing the racist finger, if you wanna start pointing the racist finger maybe you better do it at yourself. Y'know, check yoself before you wreck yoself.

Matt Davis is made entirely of cinnamon bears and chocolate. This is misguided and offensive.

Discuss.

See I can do it too! Where's my column Steven Humphrey?

"I hope you feel like a true imperial gentleman when you speak the truth that these savages can't. You and this statement are both vile."

Yawn. Internalized oppression doesn't affect everyone. That was the point of the statement. Just because a retard tells you he doesn't mind being called a retard, doesn't make it alright.

"And maybe, just maybe, that's far and away the most racist thing about all of this-- the assumption that "the black people" will decide how they feel about it as one massive block."

I don't think I did assume black people would decide on how they feel about the discussion as one massive block. I think I proposed a discussion, which has been lively and interesting.

Speaking of which, why are Morgan and Evan and Matt your chosen white names, and Jermaine and Jamal and Barack your black names? That's just plain weird. I know plenty of white guys named Jermaine...sorry, I meant Jeremy. I know plenty of white guys named Jeremy.

#51: Silver Streak is funny. But it was made 32 years ago.

I quote: "Al Jolson made a million dollars doing that shit."

And so can Robert Downey.

Matt, let's see ... you're a sad little assclown sheep killer who calls vegans morons, you've offended more people in your life than can be possibly calculated, and yet an actor pretending to be a black man horribly offends you? What's wrong with you? Brain tumor, what? Please explain. Stop acting like Mr. Sensitive because you sure as hell ain't. Anyone offended by a white actor playing a black man, or a black actor playing a white man, needs to grow the shit up, yo.

Speaking of which, Ben Kingsley played you in the movie, which was truly bloody demeaning, and no mistake.

Once again, Portland: You enjoy being offended. It brings out all that righteous zeal. Get used to it. Embrace it. Learn to love it as much as I love provoking it, and we'll have some fun. Otherwise you'll be crying and whining for decades, and that would be too bad.

Matt... You really didn't have any idea that Ben Kingsley's birthname is Krishna Bhanji, did you? And that he's half Indian? Oh, wait... the darkies and wogs can't make informed decisions because of the internalized racism, yes? I'm sure Sir Kinglsey will understand, and next time he'll ask your opinion about race relations.

So....let me get this straight. You don't really think this Robert Downey thing is demeaning at all. This is your way of tweaking what you feel is Portland's hypersensitivity by staking out a deliberately idiotic position to see how many rise to the bait? Too bad, it doesn't appear that too many posters have jumped on your fake-outrage bandwagon.

Well I for one find your characterization of Portland as "full of righteous zeal" to be stereotypical and offensive. And demeaning.

Feel better now?

Actually I do. I stand by my original two-line argument.

I also think Portlanders are oversensitive to discussing race issues.

And "darkies" and "wogs?" Puh-lease.

Not too good with reasoned responses, are we Matt? How about starting with what makes it offensive for an actor of Indian descent to play an Indian (???), and working back through your other racist nonsense. Bonus points for actually making sense, although I'm not about to hold my breath.

So: how long till Matt Davis gets it over with and writes a cover article that is explicitly, honestly, and not simply indirectly about himself; and then adds an edgy reader poll to decide whether he should be fired or retained at the Mercury?

And then odds he actually finally leaves the Portland he loves to hate to love, when nearly everyone votes "tired of hearing his narcissistic ass"?

Seriously though, who decided on what Pabst-drunken bender that it would be a good idea to hire a mediocre messageboard troll as a lead "reporter"? I guess he can't lose, since attention is all he wants.

Word is that the role was initially offered to Samuel L. Jackson, who turned it down because he was turned-off by the idea of "whiting-up", describing "that shit" to be "mis-goddamn-guided," and "fucking demeaning to black people, motherfucker." As is to be expected, Mr. Jackson was interested in no further discussion on the matter.

...: Sir Ben Kingsley is from Yorkshire and half-Jewish. Last time I checked, that didn't make him "Of Indian Descent." It made him half at most half Indian.

Gandhi was neither from Yorkshire, nor half Jewish. That's what's bloody wrong with it.

Ian: I'm happy to run such a poll on the blog, Monday. And be bound by its outcome...

So in order to not be a racist, Ben Kingsley can only take on roles in which he plays half-Jew/half-Indians from Yorkshire? Is that really what you're saying, Matt? For real?

Matt-- if you're that insecure, please run the poll.

And be sure to link to plenty of your "best" work here at the blog/weekly: vegan-hypocrite vengeance; bike deaths are better than pedestrian deaths for my stories; various sundry uses of "mate" as a withering avoidance of criticism; general "Portlanders/Americans are so thick I switched continents to feel superior to them" fodder, etc.

Alternately, you could just try to become a real journalist, and quit couching every "story" in banally incendiary terms, rendering the subject secondary to the ultimate objective of getting lots of Matt Davis time in the public mind. You're mature enough to prefer respect to mere attention, aren't you?

"...: Sir Ben Kingsley is from Yorkshire and half-Jewish. Last time I checked, that didn't make him "Of Indian Descent." It made him half at most half Indian."

Having an Indian father is pretty much a textbook example of how one can be considered "Of Indian Descent", Matt. I'm not sure what you checked (last time you checked), but it's kind of sad that the Mercury's star "investigative reporter" (a.) can't investigate facts, and (b.) doesn't understand what proper English words and phrases mean.

Good luck with the poll, and best wishes on your future endeavors (just a guess: another country, another job that you bluff your way into). As much as you've made us laugh a few times, you won't be missed.

Matt,

I'm trying to follow your argument here.

Fact: "Gandhi was neither from Yorkshire, nor half Jewish."
Reasoning/Logic: None given.
Conclusion: "That's what's bloody wrong with it."

It would be helpful if you could supply the middle part.

As I'm sure you're aware, Gandhi was unavailable to play the role of Gandhi in the movie "Gandhi", as Gandhi was dead. So someone else had to play Gandhi. Someone *not Gandhi*. An *actor*.

And what were the requirements for this role? Just guessing, I'd say:
1. Having some acting ability.
2. Looking more like Gandhi than, say, Patrick Swayze (although that would have been interesting).

Now I'd say that Ben Kingsley fit these criteria rather well. Does it matter whether he's Indian, Jewish, or fucking Eskimo? I don't see how, honestly. Inasmuch as anyone could possibly care, the fact the he is apparently half Indian should satisfy those that require some litmus test of ethnic authenticity.

But I guess not. So you tell me: How Indian does the actor playing Gandhi need to be? Would a Nepali or Pakistani be OK? Does he have to be Hindu, or could a Muslim or Sikh do just as well?

I honestly have no idea what you're on about here. If you have some broader idea or argument, please do articulate it.

Matt, if you end up eating your shoe, please make sure someone's there to photograph it.

Matt,
What paper in Canary Wharf did you write for?

A trade paper on Wells Street called Money Marketing.

I'm not going to run a "sack me" poll. But let me ask you guys something:

Would you rather read (and comment on) blog posts written by someone willing to take risks and have opinions, occasionally, or would you like me to tailor all my content to avoid offense?

Seriously, I'm interested.

Because it was my impression that being a writer meant having an opinion. I've never claimed to be objective.

A little humility, I'd like to see.

Keep moving.

Matt--

Too bad about the poll. I was prepared to at least give you credit for a little moxie.

Re: "opinions" and "risk"--a non-rhetorical question: are you hired as a reporter, or as an editorialist? No one begrudges opinions/biases/interests honestly and openly admitted, in the right context. But the problem is that you're seemingly unable to recognise the instances where simply reporting/investigating is what's called for. I'm honestly surprised that someone paid to write thinks that having opinions is the same as taking a risk (and furthermore, that said person assumes "taking a risk" is an inherent good, in the absence of real content). Taking a risk does not mean flying blind, grinding an ax, venting petty resentments, burning strawmen, or injecting ones "personality" at all opportunities.

You're setting up a false dichotomy, and I have a feeling you know it. Rather than either of your options--your definition of a "risk taker" or your false alternative of someone avoiding "offense"--I think most of us taking you to task would rather read someone who simply takes a little more care, a little more time, a little more responsibility, and writes with more interest in their subject and less interest in themselves. I guess what used to be called "a reporter," before some sort of lowest-common-denominator post-modernism, admission-of-subjectivity was presented as a free pass for lazy journalism.

Ian: for someone who claims to hate what I stand for, you seem remarkably interested in what I represent.

Honestly, keep writing. I love to hear from you.

Kiss kiss.

Ok, I see it was a dangerous assumption on my part that you are suitably intelligent for your job, but merely lacking the necessary degree of responsibility. I thought perhaps you could do better, if you could quit thinking everything were about you. It's clear that you can't manage either goal. It's a shame that the Mercury, independent journalism, and to a degree Portland is being represented by your work.

I said nothing about, and have no interest in, what "[you] represent". I responded to your either/or, you didn't like the response, and so you went with self-parody, pathetic ad-hominem, and a sort of baiting ("kiss kiss") that's beneath a fifteen year old trolling YouTube comments.

You don't really love to hear from anyone, Matt, because you can't hear anything other than your own name.

Matt, in this thread alone you've had several people point out your complete lack of intellectual rigor and unwillingness to engage in any sort of honest discussion (hint: responding to criticism is a good start). If you think that banging on the keyboard like an attention starved toddler is for the good of your readership, you're sadly mistaken.

Too bad about the poll you promised, although I think we all know how that would have ended.

"Ian: for someone who claims to hate what I stand for, you seem remarkably interested in what I represent."

Matt, I'm confused by this statement. Where did he claim this? Or is it one of those self-evident truths that you use in place of facts the majority of time?

Jesus Christ, guys, lay off Matt. He's 'special', and we have him here on a work-exchange program for the developmentally-disabled. We're trying our hardest to keep him away from the computers, but I'm sure its obvious to you all that he's not exactly able to be reasoned with. We're working on building a pen for him right now, so hopefully this will all be taken care of soon. I apologize for his drivel, but legally we can't send him back yet. Thanks for bearing with us.

Uhhh... why even comment, Humphrey?

Ian wins. Matt loses. The end.

Amy is the only legit news/current events reporter still at the Merc (since Scott left), and eventually, like Scott, she'll realize it's a dead end with people like Davis and Humphrey still around and she'll have to move on to greener pastures if she wants to progress her career.

re: internalized oppression

Psychobabble: grandiloquent and vacuous use of psychology-laced jargon.

Wow. I'm off to therapy.

"Wow. I'm off to therapy."

Have fun. Perhaps it would be cheaper and more dignified if you could respond to criticism like a mature human being that chooses to speak in a public forum?

I think that's the point of therapy.

[STOPS RESPONDING TO THIS POST].

I've read very post here and I still don't understand how, Matt, you've determined that this film is making fun of black people? Can you explain?

[HAS STOPPED RESPONDING TO THIS POST.]

Therapy isn't going to do an ounce of good if don't take responsibility for your actions. You simply need to grow up, and the first step is admitting to your mistakes.

Responding to the multitude of readers that have called you on specifics of your journalistic and personal failures would be a start, but I understand that you've amassed quite a backlog. In lieu of this, might I suggest a general mea culpa to the readership. Here's an example:

"My immaturity and ego have gotten the better of me. This has resulted in sloppy journalism, ad hominem attacks, and a refusal to interact in a manner befitting a public space populated by adults. This has been to the detriment of the Mercury, and for this I apologize. In the future, I will endeavor to behave in a more professional manner."

Good luck, Matt. I'm sure you have potential, but it doesn't really matter if your audience never sees it.

[WHAT SHE SAID. BUT I'VE STOPPED RESPONDING TO THIS POST.]

"[HAS STOPPED RESPONDING TO THIS POST.]"

Fine then. How about updating the original with why you think this film is making fun of black people? You never actually specified and it just seems a bit sensational to not do so.

That was just a template, Matt. You're going to have to do this for yourself.

If it helps, just think all the readers that don't think you're capable of this. Not the most pure motives, but you've gotta do what you've gotta do.

Also, if you took just this one thread and cleaned up the mess you made of it by responding to criticism, it would go a long way towards gaining any sort of goodwill for the readers.

For months you've been shitting on the living room rug and then dancing around proclaiming it to be a hilarious joke; I'm sure I'm not the only one that would be happily surprised if you made things better rather than worse, for once.

Just a thought, but there's a lot of investment here in my personal improvement as a human being. I wonder why you people care so much?

Full names and employment, please. Or you'll hear nothing further.

Hi Matt, my name is Doctor Stephen Krause. As you've seemingly realized by now, everyone who's ever posted anything critical about you is in the mental health field. We're actively trying to wear away at your self-worth so that you will be forced to see a therapist and part with your hard earned money. Speaking on behalf of all of us, we applaud your impressive skills of deduction.

I don't care so much about your "personal improvement as a human being" so much as I'd like to see you improve as a journalist. My name is Sara Ann Matich and I am a Masters student in Communications and Journalism at the University of Washington. I read your blogs with regularity and I never ceased to be amazed by how awful they are. You rant and rave about the issues that are dear to you, using a near-religious, one sided zeal that would make Bill O'Reilly proud. We know that you don't like vegans, rent-a-cops, anyone who bars the homeless from doing anything they'd like to, pervert cops, people who disagree with day access shelter locations, racism, people who tell you off, etc. This isn't reporting; this is just offering your opinion in a holier-than-thou tone on a topic, much like indymedia.org "reporters" do. Like those on independent media sites, yours is the only opinion that's right, and God help someone who disagrees with that opinion. You don't like vegans? Fine, but that's not news. Rent-a-cops need more oversight? OK, but how? More cops at taxpayer expense? Do the homeless even want more police citing them instead of excluding them or moving them along? Have you asked them? Does Portland follow your native London and install a CCTV camera in every conceivable space where a crime may occur? Does spending a few hours one night on the street (with a friend, no less) qualify you to report on what it's like to be homeless? Is being sworn at and insulted by a public official news? Can African-American people make their own choices as to what's offensive to them? When your friend visits from NY, does ruing the lack of drug dealers and homeless people on the street make you seem like a complete idiot?

Then there's the issue of your ego and personal problems getting in the way of good reporting. Your blog posts are so full of personal information about yourself that it's impossible not to be morbidly curious. We all know you just don't fit in, both in Portland and the comedy-based weekly you work for. Your anti-depressants keep you from drinking, though you'd like to. You don't think you're a hipster. You think cashmere sweaters are casual wear. Hypnotherapy didn't work to ease your paranoia or tension (now THERE'S a story you should have written). Your wife's family has money and lives in Colorado. You live in a condominium. You drive a Zip Car. You have low self esteem. You need serious psychiatric help. Most importantly, the Mercury needs to replace you with someone of Amy's caliber to write news articles about local law or homeless issues if they want anyone to take them seriously. Or maybe they don't, and the joke has always been on us.

^
|
|
|
the lady speaks truth.

Sara, you have a seriously creepy obsession with my husband. Hands off! Or I'll get my rich family to take revenge.

Are there some grown ups at the Mercury, at least somebody cutting the checks? Does anyone think they ought to be sent this thread, in case they've somehow heretofore missed the fact that they're sullying the name of their publication and their town via this particular hire? Or would the simple fact that a large number of people have commented reassure them that their advertisers are getting value for money?

Matt--I'd provide you with my personal information privately, if you feel the need to confirm I'm a real person and not a manifestation of your own professional guilt as a ghost in the machine. But you don't need to know who I am or what I do, because I'm not pushing what I do in a public forum. The difference remains that I know my work isn't about me, and I know no one would or should care who I am anyway, if I'm doing my job well.

[A question that will, like all others, be ignored:] Can you honestly, truly not see that none of us cares one iota about your "personal improvement," and that if the character of "Matt Davis, provocateur at large" "pissed off," we'd all be thankful? You're starting to seem like a hipster inversion of The Office character Michael Scott (translation: David Brent), utterly unable to differentiate between the personal and the professional, but in your case desperate to make enemies rather than friends.

We keep saying, "we don't care about you, just do your job better," simply and directly. You keep hearing "they hate me, which must mean they really love me, I guess I'll punch them again" like a seven year old boy on his first crush.

I think you really ought to reconsider the vote-of-confidence poll, since you will never actually hear, nor actually respond to, and much less take action on any professional criticism.

Hi, Susan. We had this really awesome moment earlier this afternoon when some of us thought Matt was going to take responsibility for orchestrating the shit-show that he's currently in the midst of (and won't stop whinging about!). I know; we're a gullible lot, but hope springs eternal!

Alas, your golden boy realized that he couldn't live without attention, even if it was only negative attention. If it wouldn't be too difficult, could you log into Matt's account and publish a apology on his behalf? I think it's for the best for all of us. Thanks for doing your part, and let him know that we all wish him luck in therapy.

Get the fuck away from my wife.

Yawn...

Sorry, folks, but I'm not about to dig Matt out of this.

In the beginning, I thought he was charming and he made me laugh. Like you, I laughed at his youthful bravado and saw a little bit of myself in the underdog that continuously overreached his capabilities. Also like you, I soon started to find his calculated shenanigans to be asinine and insecure. It took us a while, but I think we all see the truth by now: he's a douche.

Don't worry, the divorce papers have been served already. With any luck, he'll be scampering out of our fair town soon enough.

That wasn't me.

(I know you wish you WERE married to Matt, Sara, but you'll just have to suck it up and continue obsessing about him from afar)

"That wasn't me."

I love how only Matt and Susan ever use that line.

Get the fuck away from my wife, psycho.

Wow, I'm actually stunned at the level & ferocity of self-righteous spewdom in this thread. Well done, guilt-ridden, pseudo-intellectual, guilty white assholes!

"Well done, guilt-ridden, pseudo-intellectual, guilty white assholes!"

Perhaps you didn't read the whole thread, Blinky. The correct response is "Well done, Matt Davis! You resisted the tide of rational thought for days!"

BOOOOOOOOOOOORIIIIIING...

Has anybody ever seen Norbit? A tour de force!

I would like to know who is responsible for letting The Poor comment on this blog?

from Matt Davis's New Years Resolution Post:

2.Offend more people, but not just for the sake of it. In case you hadn’t realized, I love pissing people off. Much of the time I’ll behave like an asshole just to get a rise out of people, and it’s a great substitute for doing anything constructive. This year coming, I’d like to offend more people by asking them more thoroughly researched questions in good faith (oddly, this does seem to be considered offensive by many Portlanders) and less people by asking them flippant questions designed only to make their blood boil. That doesn’t mean I’m above writing to the mayor’s spokesman, John Doussard, asking why “resign” isn’t on Tom Potter’s list of engagements for the week, but it does mean trying to get him to see the funny side occasionally.

Thank you very much.

This is exactly what I meant, Matt. Today's news is about YOURSELF...again. Once again you've managed to take constructive criticism and turn it into a sympathy gathering mission. You use humor to side-step the point but the fact remains: no one cares about your personal life, including your weird New Years resolves. Believe me, I don't want to know all the things I mentioned above but I can't help it: I read your posts. I don't want to know that Matt enjoys cooking (the more exotic, the better), wants a pissed-off cop to stalk him, wants a website dedicated to what a piece of shit journalist he is, that he went home for Christmas and erased his dad's iTunes music, etc. Seriously, this is the kind of information you post on your LiveJournal page. When you actually write about a local legal issue, it's more often than not ridiculous (odd cases making their way through Federal Court?).

What I DO want is better written coverage of local law enforcement, human rights, and legal issues and how they pertain to the people of Portland. You are not capable of this and your editors need to hire someone who is...period. The sooner they figure this out, the sooner people will begin to respect what's written by its reporters. Joke about that however you see fit.

Sara, do you have a blog? I would like to read it. Or a weekly paper maybe?

Maybe she has a blog devoted to Matt Davis and his personal life. Either that or she stores all the little bits of information she has collected about him over the last two years on tiny pieces of paper that she tapes to her wall. Unless it's all in her head. Either way it's extremely weird.

"Unless it's all in her head. Either way it's extremely weird. "

That's why I'm almost convinced that Sara is one of his relatives. Or a coworker.

SCG, I know about half of that info simply from Matt's writing for the Merc. Keep in mind that until this recent groundswell of animosity towards Matt, I really tried to avoid his writing when I could.

oh no! James is another stalker!

I've got two stalkers! Sarah Matich: Good luck getting a job. Perhaps the Oregonian will take you...

perhaps this entire thread is too "subtle for American audiences".

Surely post #117 is not actually by Matt Davis? That would seem to be beneath any mentally-able adult, even the author of classics such as "kiss kiss" and "[I'VE STOPPED RESPONDING TO THIS POST]".

A personal threat--"Good luck getting a job"--as a response to thorough criticism? Coming from someone whose entire "reading public" is astonished the man is being paid to broadcast his infantile insecurities and bilious "investigative" ignorance?

If that was posted by Matt--good luck keeping a job, "mate".

Oh Matt, you constantly choose to miss the point. It's not about you, it's never about you and we don't ever want it to be about you. It's not that no one likes you; it's that no one cares. We're tired of hearing about your life because that's not what we read The Mercury for. I for one make a concerted effort to know as little as possible about you; the only problem is you continue to be thrust into the topic of conversation whenever ineptitude and foolishness are brought up. For my part I am taking a stand about you. I won’t read The Mercury as long as you write for it and I won't buy anything that advertises in it. I'd like to think that if people ignore you you'll go away but if not, at least I don't have to care about you.

pdwvkf jvqozys fdgtew rjtl grupwvtd azstqxrl lvcpg

Catherine, you won't even Dine for Darfur?

That wasn't my wife.

Why are you racist Sara?