The first to annoy me was Dan Calabria, who e-mailed me at 11:20 a.m. to say:
“Request – in the future it would be greatly appreciated if you included the source of the info…in this case MSNBC. The fact is they have zero credibility and they are hard left agenda driven. Please don’t waste reader’s time and provide this info up front. Thank you.”
Calabria was referring to a section in this post in which I CLEARLY — and by CLEARLY I mean crystal-freaking-clear — begin the section with a hyperlink that reads “First Read.”
I don’t know how much more clear I could be for Mr. Calabria, short of circling the text in red and mailing it to him. So I responded to Mr. Calabria with a simple message, “The post CLEARLY shows at the very beginning a bold hyperlink that the piece is from First Read. Please don’t waste my time with your silly emails.”
From there, the conversation went downhill very quickly. Mr. Calabria calls me a “nitwit” while bemoaning my lack of professionalism. Etc. Etc.
I guess what really bothered me about Calabria’s message was his comment about MSNBC having “zero credibility.” Listen, you might not agree with MSNBC, but to say that they have “zero” credibility demonstrates that you are mentally unhinged. I would say the same thing to someone who said the same thing about Fox News, too.
Accordingly, my parting message to Dan Calabria was, “Take crazy somewhere else.”
But there must be a full moon or something because all of the oddballs came out today.
A reader named Jonathan commented at the end of this post:
“This site has now published two articles inaccurately/prematurely describing Nina Hayden as off the ballot for the D13 Congressional race. She is, in fact, on the ballot after winning her appeal last Friday. I think it would be appropriate if you wrote a story acknowledging your error and rescinding your harsh comments.”
To which I replied:
“She (Nina) is temporarily back on the ballot, after winning an injunction. It remains to be seen whether she is allowed to remain on the ballot. The articles published last week were not inaccurate as they correct at the time. As for their harshness, I thought I was being merciful. Nina is a lamb to the slaughter.”
That’s when Jonathan ramps it up:
“As a journalist (even a blogger) you should consider it your responsibility to produce unbiased stories. Clearly, you have some unexplained vendetta against Nina that I simply don’t understand.”
By this point, I’ve had it:
“I have no such responsibility to produce unbiased stories. This is MY blog. That said, Nina is simply one of the most naive candidates I’ve met in my 14 years of consulting. To run first against Jack Latvala and then Bill Young — while giving up a seat on the School Board — should make anyone question her judgment.”
Jonathan gets the last word:
“then your blog sucks =)”
Apparently it does. Mostly, I’m sure, because I don’t pay enough attention to fourth-tier candidates like Nina Hayden. Or Darren Ayres, whoever the hell that is, but on whose behalf I received two e-mails from a reader today, asking, “Why no mention of Darren Ayres who is running for US Congress as a Republican in District 13 of Florida?”
By this point in the day, I realize I’ve spent far too much time justifying why I don’t devote more of my limited bandwidth to covering beyond long-shot candidates and their campaigns.
What am I? The Bay Buzz?