I'm most struck by this line, "I will not name names. But in recent days, Lewinsky has been back in the news".
The name he's not naming is LibbyColemanCopeland (oops!), who wrote this silly article about Ms. Lewinsky last week.
Why not call out his colleague by name?
Seems passive/aggressive not to.
Plus there should be a link to the original article that caused him to write his response, it's very unbloggerly not to.
First, if he was a blogger, he would have responded the same day, even if it was Christmas Eve, second, he would have addressed specific issues with the original article rather than write his own take off on it without directly referencing it. Thirdly and more importantly, he would have linked the article in the first place so that his readers could judge for themselves rather than forcing them to trust his opinion of the article.
Washington Post should have had the sense to include a link to increase traffic to both articles, but obviously their web editors don't yet think like people who are natives in the web, rather they treat it like a dirty, dank colonial outpost where they're stuck until they can get a 'real' job in the print division.
02 January 2007
More of the Same
My reaction to this post over at Althouse regarding another WaPo time waster regarding Monica Lewinksy (which was a reaction to a snarkier WaPo time waster from last week). This isn't a tale of bias so much as cluelessness, and a lack of adaptability that will lead to irrelevance, if not extinction.
LABELS:
Media Cluelessness
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment