Obviously, that’s not the main point of my article, and if you had read the paragraph that preceded the question, you’d have realized that it was a rhetorical question asked in a humorous manner.

Your blog piece says a lot more about you as a person than it does about the “stupidity” of my article. Although, I’m sure your readers can see that for themselves, which is probably why so many more people read WSN as opposed to NYULocal.

Daniel Levinsohn

Thanks for the plug, by the way. You can find all of my other articles here:

http://www.nyunews.com/7.3285?q=levinsohn&from=09%2F05%2F08&to=MM%2FDD%2FYY

No, it is the main point of your article. It’s the guiding idea of the whole piece. Your conclusion is: “Absent the capture of Osama bin Laden, a year-end rally in the stock market and an end to the war in Iraq, there is little Bush can do now to change his legacy.”

Regarding the question being humorous, I guess I missed that?

No offense, Charlie, as I think you wrote a good piece previously (Obama appointees/torture), but this one is just as weak as Levinsohn’s piece. Lame journalism all around, boys.

I always read the WSN, they are not perfect, but the paper has been breaking solid news in recent weeks which have appeared in city papers (and they have been named among the nation’s best college papers in recent years), and I never see them taking lame shots at NYU local, which they easily could, because I have seen some seriously poor “articles” on this blog site thing.

Seriously, local editors, take this point to heart–get over yourselves, and just stop whining like little babies. It looks cheap and very weak. You guys can’t go a week without crying about something WSN does. Grow up. Practice journalism.

If this is what journalism will become in the future, we’re all screwed.

Though Charlie’s post bears an unnecessary undertone of “cattyness”, the premise for the attack, if not the execution, seems completely valid. Daniel’s article is completely ludicrous (sorry I failed to note the alleged humorous undercurrent). Honestly can Bush “fix” his legacy in the next two months? It’s like putting your money on Ford to spearhead a coalition on clean air policy, or perhaps one on abolishing the automobile as a means of transportation, it makes no sense. It’s just not possible, and to pose the question at all is stupid. Furthermore it redirects political discussion to a topic that is absolutely pointless. Can Bush fix his legacy? his fucking legacy? really is this what you care about. In making this the point of your article you completely devalue the impact of 8 years of incompetent rule. The atrocities committed by his administration are not such that they can be negated by “a year end rally of the stock market” or “an end to the war in Iraq”. Come on now, would this really validate his actions, or even overshadow them. Simply put your article, besides being ludicrous, misses the point.

and tim, I see what your saying about this back and forth but in theory I think you’re completely wrong. Is it really so bad for one alternate news source to critique another? I really don’t see how we are all “screwed” if the news media that indoctrinates our nation if subject to some scrutiny. And no, I don’t want to read WSN NYUlocal catfights over trivial issues, and I certainly don’t want to read debates that revolve around the respective popularity of the cites, but quite frankly I love the idea of them questioning the validity and quality of individual posts. I’m sure both writers will get notes from their editors saying “come on now guys this is kind of silly” and maybe “next time have more substantive posts guys so we don’t appear like assholes on the internet” and both already got an earful from you, and now me and its seems to me this only results in their improvement as journalists and as writers. The more the two cites critique each other (on legitimate grounds) the better informed we, the ignorant college masses, become. yes the tone of the article was inappropriate and maybe its claims were unsubstantiated but did they really have to be? i think the post has some value in simply pointing out that Daniel’s article was pretty ridiculous.

hey guys if you havent watched the news, bushs legacy as president is a major topic right now. levinson is just posing a question, its not as if it’s his own opinion, hes only a writer talking about current events. ignorance isnt good for journalism hayes.

[...] and don’t read it online. This information has been publicly available for a few weeks, but Daniel Levinsohn’s comment about traffic reminded me that the news hasn’t [...]