The Other Side of the Coin on Lapham’s Quarterly
As a blogger, I am realistic about the number of people who read Media Critiques. I know that my readership is relatively low though I have a number of loyal readers. I have received emails from only a handful of the individuals (or representatives of those individuals) whom I have spoke of since I started writing this summer. My writing on Media Critiques is a labor of love and a soapbox to help me get out my opinions in a crowded blogosphere.
Peter Struck from the Lapham’s Quarterly editorial board recently left a message on Media Critiques. This message along with an email with the same material criticized my initial critique of Lewis Lapham’s new publication for being misinformed. I have to stay that I am impressed that Mr. Struck has the time to scour the blogosphere for criticisms of the new publication. Thanks for reading Media Critiques, Mr. Struck!
There are a few reasons why I feel that Mr. Struck’s criticisms are not entirely correct:
1. Media Critiques is not dogmatic in its approach to criticizing the media. If Mr. Struck had read past blog entries on Carson Daly, the U.S. Postal Service and John Edwards, he would know that this blog is general in its scope. I do not stick to critiquing media outlets and publications in my daily entries.
2. While I may not have read the print edition of Lapham’s Quarterly that I briefly mentioned, I certainly read the website material. There are elements of the websites that are exclusive to the Internet but between Mr. Lapham’s preamble and the select documents available on the website, I gave a first blush about the publication. I take umbrage to the accusation that I was unprepared for this article. The scope of my entry is not what you thought it was, Mr. Struck.
3. The loyal readers of Media Critiques have an appetite for new reading material. Lapham’s Quarterly will be read by some of the blog’s viewers out of curiosity and some will enjoy the material. I was using my experience with Harper’s and my reading of the web material to formulate a preliminary opinion.
I hope that these points answer Mr. Struck’s criticisms of my blog entry. If they do not, I have to say that I am not in the business of pleasing everyone all of the time.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Rightly said, that we won’t please everyone all of the time. Nor should we attempt to. That’s the point of our writing, and we all know that as much as we love to receive comments, most readers don’t leave one (including ourselves), unless something said strikes a nerve. So I think it’s cool that you happened upon Struck’s last good one. At least you know now that he’s a reader. And yeah, I’ve got to admit, I did go check out that Lapham’s Quarterly thing, too.