One of the nice things about the "new morning paper" is that you don't have to settle for pedestrian, predictable hacks like her.
I like the logic of this column. Because some bloggers said horrible things about Jill Carrol. The whole blogosphere should be ashamed.
Two years later, we have -- ready, fire, aim -- the Jill Carroll affair. These attacks raise the question of what bloggery is going to be when it grows up. An Internet op-ed page? Or a polarized, talk-radio food fight?By her logic, i could describe print journalists as a cynical pack of liars, charlatans, and scam artists. After all, look at the newspapers with the biggest readership-- The Star, The National Enquirerer, News of the World.
It's also nice how she fails to name the bloggers who specifically cautioned against reading too much into Jill Carroll's interviews before we had the whole story. Or the vast number who said nothing at all.
Which brings up another point. Why did not the MSM highlight the fact that the interviews were suspect? Why, come do think of it, were they so eager to run terrorist propaganda?
The bloggers who attacked Carroll should have known better. On the other hand, the professional media did not provide the critical context when they ran parts of the interview over and over.
And Ellen Goodman thinks the blogger kettle is black?
UPDATE: Compare the way the Boston Globe (owned by the New York Times) handles its border with bloggers compared to the Washington Post. On the Globes page, you see only the Globe-approved opinion. At the Post, OTOH, you can also see the blogs that react to the story.
Which paper has more respect for their readers, more confidence in their writers, and a better understanding of the changes in "expanation space"?