Some time back, I was interviewed by a very nice lady from the NYT. She told me that she read IB "often," and found a lot of our information useful, but also mentioned that a lot of it seemed "inside baseball." By that she meant that we tended (still tend?) to be a bit wonky in what we choose to write about, and how we choose to write it. It's not a bad criticism, just acknowledging that we're in a fairly defined field.
One of the problems with being very "inside baseball," though, is that one tends to focus solely on the moment, at the expense of the big picture. And that's why we aren't constantly updating with the latest head count of "yea's" and "nay's" on ObamaCare. The only tabulation that counts is the one that will (might? won't?) take place on the 21st (or whenever). Until then, all the "he's switching to yes" and "she's switching to no" will drive a sane person crazy.
And we already do enough of that here.
One of the problems with being very "inside baseball," though, is that one tends to focus solely on the moment, at the expense of the big picture. And that's why we aren't constantly updating with the latest head count of "yea's" and "nay's" on ObamaCare. The only tabulation that counts is the one that will (might? won't?) take place on the 21st (or whenever). Until then, all the "he's switching to yes" and "she's switching to no" will drive a sane person crazy.
And we already do enough of that here.
Posts
