In any case I would still hold by my somewhat pomo sentiments on superlatives. Despite the explicit-ness of the article, there was still a “superlative” feel in how the article was presented.

These two statements are different:
** Here are the top five blogs in Atlanta.
** Here are five “quick pick” blogs our staff enjoys reading.

They’re fundamentally different, and are typically presented in fundamentally different ways. How often are staff picks presented as a cover story? Is it reasonable to expect the reading public to discern the difference when staff picks are presented as a cover story?

What I more fundamentally disagree with was the article having to point out that there is a lot of bad writing out there. I’m not offended — I just disagree with that editorial decision in the context of the article. It doesn’t help the “not a best of” case, even if the case is explicit.

And by the way… I don’t really think the whole thing is a huge deal, either. The article would not be a good example of some “great fallacy” of the MSM by any stretch of the imagination.

Thank you for commenting on the piece.

A couple ‘o comments

1. I explicitly stated in the introduction that it was not a best of or a comprehensive overview.

2. Commenting on GriftDrift, I was speaking for myself. Hence the I.

I wrote the story and agree with the picks, but they weren’t just my favorites. They’re five of CL’s favorites.

To be very specific, they’re five of the editorial and online department’s favorites. Before I started soliticiting suggestions, I didn’t know that Gloria Brame’s blog or I Saw It On Ponce existed.

I hadn’t paid much attention to Kos — never really have. So the reference is unintentional.

The entire title is set out to poke fun at everyone (though not quite in the way you implied). After all, it was apparently a slow news week for CL, so they had Andisheh take up some space and write up this little superlatives article.

And me. Simple? Yeah, actually.