For the sake of your own sanity & all that is un-holy, do not click either one. Although we'd usually refer to the two of them as media weasels, we really just like the headline.
Nonetheless, I clicked. Both. (I do not actually have a problem with either of those people.)
I did not have a problem with either article, uh, either, though Arianna's could be called a little over-protesting and Bill's could be called a little stuffy and faux-self-deprecating.
Admit it. You actually feel just about the same way. ;)
As with navel-gazing, linking based only on familiarity with the headline is a weblog tradition, and you know how we are instructed to be aware of all of those.
3 comments:
And a fine headline it was.
Nonetheless, I clicked. Both. (I do not actually have a problem with either of those people.)
I did not have a problem with either article, uh, either, though Arianna's could be called a little over-protesting and Bill's could be called a little stuffy and faux-self-deprecating.
Admit it. You actually feel just about the same way. ;)
Misanthropic Editor Admits:
Well, we have problems w/ people in general. Then it worsens as we move up to those in positions of power, wealth & authority.
We didn't read either one, just saw the accusations at memeorandum & figured the headline would work. Tempest in a teapot, fighting egomaniacs & all.
We may need a disclaimer: "Items linked may or may not have been read by the editorial staff, & no guarantees are offered or implied."
No disclaimer needed, I should think.
As with navel-gazing, linking based only on familiarity with the headline is a weblog tradition, and you know how we are instructed to be aware of all of those.
Post a Comment