One of my blog posts was recently cited in a Slate.com article about Malcolm Gladwell. Slate writer Jack Shafer attempts an expose of Gladwell's stories of his early journalism days, which Shafer describes as "mostly bunk." He goes on (and on) about the perceived wrongs being committed by Gladwell, and includes a list of bloggers and writers who were 'duped' by the This American Life podcast.
Whether or not I really was, I leave up to you, but clearly there were a number of people who did take Gladwell's stories seriously ... it is also clear that they were a huge minority.
The article's comment forum is filled with irate readers who feel they didn't require a "detailed debunking" of what amounts to a self-described "send-up of the seriousness with which journalists take themselves."
"What a humorless douche," reader Prytania3 writes. "It is pathetic that anyone wrote and published such attention-grabbing gotcha! shit."
Perhaps Shafer is simply a victim of poking at the bees nest that is the blogging community, but it is also a reminder of the ivory tower that many journalists tend to hole themselves up in. It is all well and good to send forth missives to educate the 'fray' (seriously, what the hell?), but make sure they are worth reading.
So Shafer: Before you publish your next tell-all (tentatively entitled: "EXPOSED: The Chicken/Road Scandal!"), consider treating your readers as being slightly more intelligent before putting your article on the front page.
Also, thank you to flutterbyblue for commenting on my post and bringing it to my attention. I'd also like to thank Slate reader wadofglue who informed me of the word monkeyfishing. I'm not sure what it is, but it sounds excellent.
No comments:
Post a Comment