In publishing an article about legal blogs, the Times shows why blogs were born - because the Times can't get anything right. The Times story on legal blogs reads:
T. Evan Schaeffer shares thoughts on law cases in Ohio and elsewhere through www.legalunderground.com.
Ohio? Are they nuts? Did a fact checker put in the the 30-seconds it would take, by following this link, to learn that Evan has law licenses in Illinois and Missouri. Wouldn't someone think: "Why would someone with law licenses in two states, neither of which being Ohio, blog about Ohio law?" I guess the operative word is think. There isn't too much of that at the Times.
Hee hee.
There's plenty of thinking done _at_ the Times, just seldom on the subject of blogs.
Also, this was not written "by the Times," it was written by a person. Specifically, a person who got facts wrong, and didn't bother checking to see if they were wrong, and somehow got it published anyway. Unless editing introduced errors? Nah, couldn't be. Well, could be.
I will refrain from calling the author an idiot until I have met them, and diagnosed them with idiocy (or proven them to have been free of idiocy at the time they wrote this) with my foolproof patent-pending idiograph.
But it just goes to show, doesn't it...?
Posted by: Eh Nonymous | October 07, 2005 at 02:10 PM
Mike, Sorry for the double TrackBack -- there was a delay with the auto ping, so I thought I needed to do it manually.
As my post suggests, I'm think you're trying to turn a molehill into a mountain.
Posted by: David Giacalone | October 07, 2005 at 04:27 PM
I wonder if this particular example doesn't just reflect the New York attitude about flyover country - "Ohio or Illionois, what's the difference?"
Posted by: markm | October 08, 2005 at 05:00 AM