Rarely, Gawker gets correspondence from readers, and even more rarely, some of this correspondence is not all positive. Even more rarely still, and more often randomly, we attempt to answer questions or concerns raised in such letters. For example, here's a criticism about a post regarding "wise old man with all his buttons" Daniel Schorr, the famed NPR newsman and broadcaster. Writes the reader:
I've been a Gawker reader since the Spiers days but this is my first unhappy email. As an NPR listener I have no doubt that I am not part of the Gawker targeted fan base (and I'm over 40!) but Daniel Schorr? Did you have to go there? Yes you did. So here I am in your inbox. For the nothing that it's worth, I think that was badly done.Was it badly done? After the jump, let us reason together.
Certainly we were brought up to respect our elders, which is why we made only the lightest fun of Mr. Schorr's blog comment. Moreover, Schorr gets the last laugh anyway, since our aside about the lack of editorial oversight on blogs itself contained a (since corrected) typo. Even so, the reader above is too hard on himself/herself — everyone is potentially part of our "targeted fan base," even nonagenarian broadcasters. Of course, everyone is also open to potentially getting the business in these pages. What little institutional reverence we still possess wouldn't halt coverage of a minor-key newsworthy quote, especially when the treatment of same is comparatively mild. Trust us, for every mean thing you see posted, a half-dozen much nastier remarks were held back by our shriveled but nevertheless functional sense of decency.
Anyway, we're pretty sure Schorr has the intestinal fortitude to withstand ribbing from the likes of us. Maybe his fans could follow his lead, and lighten up.