A couple weeks ago Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr phoned in a dumb column about how much he hates Twitter. Well, he takes to his blog (you know, the other online medium he used to dismiss) to reveal the online bruising he took form angry, angry Tweet-addicts, and promises never to offend the Twitter-ites again. Except, when he wants to link to something that would offend the Twitter-ites.
This comes the same week another Pulitzer prize winning columnist, The New York Times Maureen Dowd, decided to write a "What is this twitter thing and why do I hate it so much?" column. But, she put a bit of actually effort into it. Not content just to idly bitch about things she doesn't understand, she actually went to Twitter headquarters to interview/interrogate the founders of Twitter. But, she makes them answer all her questions in answers that fit in Twitter's 140 character limit. See Leonard, this is how a columnist complains about things in a way that would a at least make her Pulitzer proud. Perhaps there's a way to do it in a way that doesn't make you come off like a inane bully like Dowd has, but still.
Incidentally, new blogging concern The Awl has a response
to Dowd's piece, saying that someone with a guaranteed, national
platform doesn't really need to know about, use or care for twitter.
Which is something we touched on when we originally wrote about Pitts' anti-Twitter screed
("The power of Twitter, of course, may not be immediately recognizable
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
for a man who's given a syndicated soapbox every week."). Which
basically boils down to: Kudos to Dowd for doing something interesting
or whatever, except really, I think this is the last time we need to
hear some Pulitzer winning columnist complain about Twitter. Ever.