🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <318D5E59.5D4F@clark.net>, "David H. Rothman"
<rothman@clark.net> wrote:

>The Washington Post, which earlier ran
>a Hearstian front-page attack on the "vast 
>and unregulated" Internet, has struck again. 
>
>This time it's a flame in today's book section 
>against my pro-Net book, NetWorld!: What 
>People Are Really Doing on the Internet, and 
>What It Means to You. I'll be charitable 
>toward the Post and assume that the reviewer 
>is a freelancer; but regardless, I do find it
>dismaying that such slop could pollute any 
>paper's ink.

[remainder snipped]

I've forwarded your post to Mark Baechtel, the freelancer who wrote the
review. Just a couple of points outside of that review:

1) There's no such thing as a page-one editorial. (Haven't we been through
this before?) Editorials and op-eds exist on only two pages in the paper:
the second and third-to-last in the A section on every day except Sunday,
when they live in the Outlook section.) Anything else *might* be a biased
and shoddy article, but it sure isn't an editorial. 

2) As for your efforts to rebut whatever anti-e-book articles we might've
run (I honestly can't think of any condemning the concept, as opposed to
implementations of it), while "gatekeeping" might have something to do
with it, don't you think it might also have something to do with the sheer
volume of op-ed submissions relative to the one or two slots open each
day? [I.e., as I keep saying, the press isn't as organized as you think!]


robp@cais.com ====================================================
     
  Rob Pegoraro             At work, I'm pegoraror@washpost.com  
  Washington, D.C., USA    but I'm only speaking for myself here 
       
======================================== http://www.cais.com/robp/