JUDITH SHULEVITZ has a piece entitled At Large in the Blogosphere in today's New York Times. It's not bad, but it has one omission: Shulevitz talks about how the Blogosphere "convulses" in response to pieces like Alex Beam's in The Globe -- but fails to explain that a lot of people were convulsing with laughter over Beam's inability to figure out that this page by Bjorn Staerk was an April Fool's joke. But hey -- she's using Bill Quick's word "blogosphere" in the headline, which is tribute enough.
Actually, Shulevitz's whole column is a rather typical New York Times piece: coming to the topic late, and missing the story. John Leo's piece is a lot better. What do you think accounts for the difference?
