A fellow named Chris Lydon has been interviewing bloggers and posting mp3s of the interviews to a web site. The people he’s interviewed seem to think he’s a great interviewer, and I can’t see why. In the course of interviewing Reynolds, who he calls “the Warblogger” as if there’s only one, he asserts that the New York Times supported the war in Iraq, and offers as proof the columns of Tom Friedman and Bill Safire. This was so idiotic it made my head nearly explode, and Reynolds questioned it but was polite and let him get away with it. When Reynolds pointed out that the anti- side in the Iraq war debate wasn’t really about the war, but about such things as America’s place in the world (really was more about Bush’s legitimacy as president, to tell the truth) Lydon didn’t see any problem with that, and the fellow was all agush with the “democratic” nature of the blogosphere.
While everybody likes a good ass-kissing from time to time, it’s always seemed to me that it’s much less satisfying when done by a moron. Is that too harsh?