Anna Nicole Smith: What Does CultureGrrl Think?

[Consider this a bit of comic relief on a very heavy-hearted day. I wrote this before the Glenn Lowry story broke, and had intended to post it late last night.]

The answer to the headline above is: Absolutely nothing.

No, this is not a new low for CultureGrrl (or maybe it is), but an exploration of the not-so-fine art of blog promotion, which is all about increasing your numbers through Google-friendly keywords, which may or may not be a reliable indication of a post's true contents.

An editor at a very distinguished news organization, who shall be nameless, once told me that his people deliberately sprinkle sex in their headlines to attract more hits.

I will now find out, in shameless Anna Nicole fashion, if merely invoking her sexy name, in a post that has only a little to do with her, will induce hoards of the morbidly curious to arrive at my (formerly) high-toned blog.

As I previously wrote, hapless sensation-surfers still arrive at CultureGrrl by Googling "Minnie Mouse porn." This post, intended as a serious consideration of YouTube and its possible trademark and copyright infringements, has risen through the ranks to become Number 1 of about 139,000 Google-listed entries on that kinky subject. Imagine how disappointed everyone must be when they find out what this post is actually about.

So for all you Anna addicts who arrived here under my false pretenses, let me try to get on topic:

I was very surprised to learn yesterday that I live in the world capital of Smith-ology! Yes, it's really true: The lead story (also shameless) on the "Arts" page of the NY Times informed me that Barricade Books, the publisher of the what is thought to be the only existing biography of the late tabloid queen, is ensconced in my neighborhood. Who knew?

But the person I really want to be is not the suddenly hot Barricade publisher, Carole Stuart, but Jane Hamsher, a blogger at firedoglake, who got her photo (although not her face) on Page One of yesterday's NY Times, accompanying what may be the first front-page article that this newspaper has published about blogging. Hamsher even scored a second photo on the jump page, and this one did show her photogenic physiognomy. (I once got my photo in the Times, accompanying an article that I myself wrote, but that's a story for another day.)

But what I'm REALLY jealous about is the fact that the online version of yesterday's article links directly to Hamsher's blog. When CultureGrrl made her blogger's debut in the arts pages of the NY Times, there was no such link. What's more, when I requested that a link be added, I got this disappointing reply:

We hyperlink to our own topic pages (please notice that all hyperlinks in the story take the reader to internal New York Times pages), and so we can't include the link to your blog.

I think it's time they made it up to me: Yesterday's article shows that the Times is interested in exposing the chaotic conditions under which bloggers produce their copy. So here's an open invitation to reporter Scott Shane, photographer Michael Temchine, or any other representatives of major news organizations who may desire to capture CultureGrrl in her disorderly lair: I'm ready for my close-up.

Just be careful not to trip over the piles of press releases, articles, catalogues and computer printouts with which I adorn my book-lined office!