Exit Survey »
The Washington Post published
last week by Sally Quinn. It was mostly reacting to
. It got a lot of response, both from the public and other media.
What is your overall reaction to Quinn's column? Choose the best answer.
It was interesting, and mostly heartfelt. It had some universal truths.
It was awful and trivial and self-absorbed and should not have been published.
It was self-involved, but okay; columnists write about their own lives. She is a public person and she was responding to a controversy she didn't start.
What was this column's best feature? Choose the best answer.
Discussion of wedding hell -- an issue of universal interest.
There is no best feature.
What was this column's biggest flaw?
Lack of importance
Lack of self-awareness
Lack of honesty
Lack of good writing
There is no big flaw
This column got a huge negative response. What MOSTLY accounts for that? Choose the single biggest culprit.
People are snide and mean and judgmental.
Sally wrote something atrocious.
Editors screwed up.
We as a society are insanely interested in gossip and society and celebrities, and it's going to create stuff like this.