There is an update (UPDATE x2) to this post about the Dobson-Spongebob correction. You won’t want to miss it.
I recently welcomed Susan Estrich to the enjoyable pastime of regular L.A. Times criticism. Now I’m starting to regret that I did. It has surfaced that Estrich wrote Michael Kinsley an e-mail that said, among other things:
People are beginning to think that your illness may have affected your brain, your judgment, and your ability to do this job.
Kinsley, of course, suffers from Parkinson’s.
Estrich should have never made this ugly comment; having made it, she should have immediately retracted it and apologized. Instead, she is apparently THREATENING A LAWSUIT in capital letters.
Her campaign against the L.A. Times looks like it’s headed the way of the Dukakis campaign, only nastier. If her comment to Kinsley is any indication of how she is going to behave, I want nothing to do with it.
Other bloggers have already commented on David Shaw’s rant against bloggers in the L.A. Times. But I couldn’t let this pass without comment:
But some bloggers are just self-important ranters who seem to wake up every morning convinced that the entire Free World awaits their opinions on any subject that’s popped into their heads since their last fevered post.
There is no doubt that this is true. There are literally millions of bloggers. So I’d be shocked if “some bloggers” (Shaw doesn’t name any specific ones) didn’t fit Shaw’s description.
What I found interesting is that Mr. Shaw’s comment also very neatly describes some editors at the L.A. Times. If you read their editorials on a regular basis, you quickly learn that, while they are sometimes quite thoughtful, they are frequently also shockingly uninformed.
In my view, this results directly from the fact that a small group of editors apparently feel that the world needs to hear their opinions on every imaginable topic — despite the fact that they are clearly not experts on most subjects, as they regularly demonstrate in shallow and inaccurate editorials.
Surely Shaw is aware of this. Yet, apparently more to vent his spleen than for any informative purpose, Shaw chooses to insult the medium of blogging for sins of which his own editors are at least as guilty.