tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post4666080620000816998..comments2023-08-19T06:19:28.990-04:00Comments on the nytpicker: NYT's Bill Keller Blasts "Armchair Experts" Again. Except This Time, Keller Forgets That He Was The Armchair Expert.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-48005536444335438362009-11-11T23:13:19.646-05:002009-11-11T23:13:19.646-05:00There is a certain delight in skipping an entire s...There is a certain delight in skipping an entire section others live for, such as the NYT sport pages or gold trends in other financial media. One's irrelevant delirium is another's found time.Horlix Noladimhttp://sites.google.com/site/666alphaomeganoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-88784676700639319942009-11-10T09:37:48.709-05:002009-11-10T09:37:48.709-05:00The thing I like the least about Keller is that he...The thing I like the least about Keller is that he's always ridiculing others to make his points. Like in the speech, he attacks the CNN website. What for? Does it make him feel superior? And calling your critics "armchair experts" implies that only people who work at the NYT are privileged enough to criticize it. Maybe Bill should stop reading what the "experts" say and get back to work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-32831168030985448262009-11-10T09:11:09.913-05:002009-11-10T09:11:09.913-05:00First, I don't think your headline is accurate...First, I don't think your headline is accurate... "blasts"?<br /><br />Here is Keller's 'blast':<br /><i>"One of the armchair experts quoted by the public editor wondered why we don’t eliminate the Sports section"</i><br /><br />Thats not blasting anything, unless you call any reference to an '<i>armchair expert</i>' a blast.<br /><br />I went ahead and read the Public Editor piece you're referring to . <br /><br />The only mention of the Sports section and Keller is:<br /><br /><i>"More radical moves, like dropping the sports section, have been rejected because they would undermine the quality of The Times or would not save much money, Keller said."</i><br /><br />The only reference to "armchair experts" is:<br /><br /><i>"Keller said: 'It’s a much tougher, more complicated decision than it seems to all the armchair experts. There is no clear consensus on the right way to go.'"</i><br /><br />Have I missed the entire point of your post? Other than the slightly funny circular reference by Keller... which isn't exactly correct if you re-read it.<br /><br />The Public Editor didn't quote anyone "wondering" about getting rid of the Sports Section. The Public Editor quoted Keller talking about that idea being dismissed.<br /><br />So he mis-spoke, but not in the way you claim, so you've committed the same foul too?<br /><br />Come on, you can and should be better than this.<br /><br /><b>-M</b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-66657849483118154522009-11-10T08:04:07.221-05:002009-11-10T08:04:07.221-05:00I'm imagining a New Yorker cartoon featuring a...I'm imagining a New Yorker cartoon featuring a guy literally paralyzed by his inability to continue his lifelong habit of starting the paper at the sports section ...<br /><br />What's Keller thinking of doing next? Killing off the Sunday comics?Robertohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15658466320690980920noreply@blogger.com