Eric Alterman writes in that he doesn't dislike blogs, just Andrew Sullivan's.
If that's the case, I have a simple solution for him -- don't visit andrewsullivan.com. And if it's the day-in-the-life personal stuff he doesn't care for, he can visit the site and skip those posts. Nobody's standing behind him with a hot poker making him visit as.com. As far as I know, it's not the default home page for any Web browser.
I think what really rankles Alterman is that not reading Sullivan isn't an option, because so many other people do. A lot of people agree with a lot of what Sullivan says, and enjoy the personal anecdotes. And they're reading Sullivan's website instead of Alterman's great columns, such as his categorization of pundits on their Mid-East biases. Because of bloggers like Sullivan, Alterman may have to actually get off his butt and write something creative, rather than mailing something like this in. And he doesn't like it.
Here's the key quote:
A worthwhile, in my view, blog is one that sticks to topics that are likely to be of interest to significant numbers of people and treats them intelligently and (relatively) responsibly.
Again, if you don't find a blog worthwhile, don't visit it. If as.com isn't worthwhile, the why is it worth publishing a screed about how un-worthwhile it is, while working in some personal attacks against the writer? Seems like it would be simpler just to vote with one's feet. Is column space in The Nation that cheap that it's worth wasting on running down an un-worthwhile web log?
Alterman seems to be saying that he doesn't mind blogs, provided the play by the same rules as print journalism. Sorry, this is a new media, and the rules are different. Whining about it won't change it.