I’m not surprised that his poking a sacred cow resulted in his receiving ad hominem counterattacks (‘Who are you, Cauthorn, to say who can and who cannot blog?’) from one of the high priests. But what does surprises me here is the priest himself has a very long history of blogging his own opinions about who should and shouldn’t be doing what online. Doesn’t Bob have an equal right to do so, even if his opinions are contrary to the new dogma?

Anyone who questions who he is to have said what he’s said needs to question their own right to say such things, too. The fact is you each have that right. Blessed be free speech, even when contrary to the new dogma. So, if you want to refute what Bob says, refute what he says, not him personally or how he says it.

With strikingly rare exceptions (hello, beloved Guardian), media staff written blogs are as boring and popular as wet newsprint. Bob wasn’t ‘importing the very worst of old media into new’ but pointing to justly failed examples of such import. He wasn’t cutting ‘these saplings off before they could sprout’, but suggesting that perhaps the roots of one-to-many big media thinking don’t transplant into many-to-many new-media soil. The real shame here is people who try to cover that up.

Thanks for the very kind words. We have learned so much in just our few short months of blogging. There is a new type of freedom of expression and discussion that you get with blogging that I really welcome. The direct feedback, the unexpected and insightful comments, the humbling experiences, the stretching of muscles we never really use in traditional journalism,and what we still need to learn–I love it.

The first time I read this sentence, I kept thinking “ghetto” and “rap.” I got it the second time, but it’s still hilarious.