Few things annoy me more than asking an acquaintance if they read the most recent column by a journalist we both enjoy, only to hear them answer “I stopped reading her after…” or whatever.
Listen, if you stopped reading columnist X after she said this or that, then the writer benefits from your absence in the mezzanine of the peanut gallery. The writer may be a hack, but you sir-(or ma’am), are an idiot.
All I’m saying is that any person who decides that -after their 500th Cynthia Tucker, David Ignatius, Maureen Dowd, Jared Ball, James Fallows, or Yvette Carnell article that the writer just “isn’t for them”, solely because said writer made a couple of specious or broadly defined arguments, just isn’t very bright.
Whatever infraction assaulted your delicate sensibility better be damned serious for you to throw out the writer with the bath water. I mean, everyone has an off day. Everyone makes a weak argument. But what does it say about you that you can’t abide a contradiction, an off day, or worse – a writer who disagrees with you. What does it say about you that you made this writer’s column appointment reading until he or she deviated from your inconsistent standard?
Here’s the truth; the writer’s probably a much better purveyor of information than you are an interpreter of it. If the writer were not at least decent, you wouldn’t have been a such a fanboy in the first place. And if you were an emotionally stable person, then it wouldn’t peeve you to no end that the writer didn’t meet your expectations. That he or she didn’t present the argument the way you would have isn’t a grown up reason to ditch her. But either way, good riddance.