Regarding David Chute's complaints: Chute neglected to mention that he failed to show up for his screening, then turned in two graphs that were sloppily written and completely arcane to the general reader. I was his editor. Ella Taylor, LA Taylor

This is, I'm afraid, a pretty solid example of one aspect of blogging that gives blogs their rotten reputation among established journalists. If I saw David Chute's entry and decided I wanted to write a story about it for a print publication, I wouldn't think twice before picking up the phone or emailing the Weekly for the editor's side of the story. That's the modus operandi.

The modus operandi for link-aggregating blogs like this one, on the other hand, is to find an interesting item to point to, contextualize it in some way (in this case, within the framework of a widespread discussion of the state of film criticism), and - and this is the crucially dangerous moment here - move on without a second thought to the next interesting item.

Compiling these daily briefings on what all is being said, written, blurbed and linked to on any particular day, is a service (of sorts) many have expressed appreciation for, but it is also, as I'm reminded now in the most humbling of ways, a perilously thin one.

If I'd had any inkling that you, Ella, one of my own favorite writers, were the editor DC's referring to, and had I known the other side of the story, the circumstances behind DC's post, I probably wouldn't have pointed to it at all. There's a virtual whirlwind of complaint at the moment about the machinery of the publishing industry driving serious criticism out of its system. DC's post seemed a neat fit. Too neat, I know now, and for that I don't hestitate a moment to apologize.

I think Ian McShane, is playing David Chute in Woody Allen's 'Scoop.'

Having apparently jumped to one comclusion, you should have been a little more cautious about compounding the mistake by jumping to another. The one offense I am willing to cop to was airing in public an incident that should have been discussed privately or not at all. Beyond that, no conclusions can be drawn about whwt actually occurred. The principles disagree about almost every detail.

My original post has been significantly modified to remove the offending graphs, and now contains a couple of new ones that will my last word on this subject: http://davidchute.journalspace.com/?cmd=forward&entryid=302

And as devoted fan of Deadwood (recently reprieved, it seems, for a fourth season), it would be a great honor to be portrayed by Ian McShane, in any light whatsoever.

David, I've clearly read and appreciated your work for years, and so, since you've written last word on this at Hungry Ghost, I'll respect that, too.

Some new thoughts there, too, on the current buzz about themselves that has sparked among critics by a series of firings of older, more experienced crirics that have people wondering if we are a dying breed. The truth is, the entire culture is gtoing through an e
inexorable Boiled Frog process of getting dumbed down. More high-minded pundits than I have noticed that both The New Yorker and the fabled NYT Arts & Liesure section are shadows of their former selves. John Rockwell, the man who brought rock criticism to the Times, was let go for not being "populist" enough. I have little doubt that the increasing centralization ot the Village Voice/New Times chain will accelerate this erosion in what used to be called alternative media. The specific local examples matter a great deal less than the overall phenomenon.

I think that, over a period of many, many years now, we've been seeing a redefining of terms like "alternative media." I find what's happening to print media across the board, with the probable exception of books (for the time being), profoundly sad. You should see my desk. It's a messy testament to my love for newspapers, magazines, journals, flyers - in short, paper.

But for all that's happening to it now, I have no doubt that there is good, solid reason to hope that film criticism will thrive no matter what happens to alt-weeklies and the like. A whole lot of people want to write it and a whole lot of people want to read it; media online actually make it easier for the minority of these two crowds, the good writers and the good readers, to find each other.

All due sympathy and respect to those whose paychecks and lives are being shaken up by current publishing changes ...

That said, as a guy who enjoys writing about the arts and gabbing with other people about 'em (and who's now blogging instead of wrestling with pro publishing), I've never been happier. Of course, I'm lucky enough to have a not-too-bad day job ... Funny to think that in the back and forth, wish and wash of online chitchat, a few people who gab about the arts will get paid for it. I wonder who? I wonder on what basis?