Woo, the feud between Conrad Black and Michael Wolff—an incarcerated media mogul fraudster and a self-absorbed media gossip—is heating up! Which of these two ridiculous men is more deserving of your scorn? Let's see:
1. Formerly a wealthy, elitist press baron, he was convicted of fraud and obstruction of justice for plundering his own company. Currently serving a 78-month prison sentence.
3.Laughable lack of self-awareness: Believes he can be taken seriously as a critic of Wolff's book while avoiding the issue of his own complete lack of credibility, caused primarily by his own complete lack of contrition.
1. Though admirably willing to talk shit to power, the heavy-lidded media writer is also fascinated above all by himself, his interactions with media moguls and celebrity media types, and the keen insights that Michael Wolff can draw by examining the exploits of Michael Wolff.
2. Instantly and enthusiastically responds to any and all comments about himself from boldface names, as he thrives on being seen as a figure of concern to the media establishment. Although he strikes back with characteristic insidery bitchiness, he would paradoxically be distraught were people to stop talking about/ insulting him.
3. Laughable lack of self-awareness: He responds to Conrad Black's attacks on his book and its facts with an ad hominem blog post (that's our job!) that completely ignores Black's claims about his errors, in favor of the idea that Black is just trying to whitewash his own reputation online, because the web is full of "balderdash":
This is a new sort of Web journalism: dramatically discredited people reinvented as Web opinionists-Slate just hired Eliot Spitzer in this vein-who will work for free. (Tina Brown herself, dramatically discredited in her own way, is using the Web for a similar type of reinvention-though she, presumably, is not working for free.)