| > you outdanged me I can only take that as a badge of honour! You've got a point on one end of that—I agree I think he should be more engaging in response to some of the critiques and questions he faced. I read through the comments. Some of the same critiques came later (they appear to have closed the comments after a week elapsed), but others were posted the same day as the article. I know some of their writers, editors, and moderators take part in online discussion in the comments; but most publishers maintain their discussions offline. Usually they'll respond in a later article or shorter columns to an aggregate of the comments or direct letters. At least, traditionally that's how those kinds of publishers have operated. So while I would also prefer he be more engaged, especially to a reasonable and seemingly obvious question like the one we're all posing, I can't give him marks for not engaging in another manner than is usual for the paper. Credibility? Well I can't argue there—people will form their opinions no matter what. It's certainly best to try and get ahead of the obvious which he failed to do. But then, credibility how? As a thoughtful person remarking quite fairly and accurately about a problem? Not at all, what he said is valid regardless. But as a self-reflecting finger wagger? Surely. Personally, the article seems to be net-good to me. I'm just glad people are writing about the subject in the mainstream, so I have to give him kudos there, even if it made him look bad (not to make him sound like some kind of credibility martyr, not even close—just a step up from soapboxing). All of what I really take issue with, is the seemingly growing consensus that it's somehow a moral failing of the newspaper itself. I have no real attachment to any outlet in particular, but I believe what they do and represent is important; that as a society it's good to have panels of people who work to keep up with the current, and work to understand the goings-on enough to remark and report on them intelligently. The last several years we've seen first-hand what happens when even good information is grossly misunderstood. It helps to have institutions working to form coherent discussions. I find it frustrating when I see so many very smart people swept up in disparaging one of the pillars of cooperative society; usually growing from one small gripe into sweeping condemnations of an "other" they don't seem to fully understand, but think they do. |