THIS IS KIND OF WHAT I WAS THINKING ABOUT THE WHOLE EASTERBROOK THING: Jack Shafer in Slate:

How could such a thoughtful, deliberate, and precise journalist have gone so stupendously wrong? Having edited Easterbrook numerous times over the years, I know him to be a polymath and a quick study, as well as a good critic of his own work. But this is the first Easterbrook piece that appears to be written from a position of ignorance. His career has been about rigor, originality, and sincerity. That said, perhaps he's not the guy who should write without the safety net of an editor.

Or the flip side of that, as I was thinking, is maybe he isn't that good of a blogger. Everybody talks out of their ass when they're blogging from time to time, and it's probably good to give warning of when you're leaving the area of the facts you think you have an informed opinion on and moving into the zone of the ass. Maybe even the slightest "I don't know movies, but I know what I like" comment from Gregg could have mitigated the silliness to come. It's just protocol, you know? I think a lot of journalists who turn to blogging have trouble switching from the authoritative journalist voice to the hey-what's-up, here's what I'm thinking blogger voice, and we may have a case of that here.

This is all ignoring the obvious explanation, of course: don't harsh on the boss.