When he talks about being a “whipping boy” to “one and all,” he’s obviously not talking about being censored; the context of the whole piece is that meanies like that one evil blogger are accusing him of showing bias.
Well… now he admits the evil blogger was right. Now he admits all the readers’ observations about bias were true. And that, my friends, is kind of a big deal. Now, he all but admits that my conspiracy-dripping inquiry was pretty much spot-on. Now that he’s off the Tribune’s payroll. How courageous!
The idea that the oh-so-horrible complaints from readers (and bloggers do read the newspaper, so as you’re pissing and whining about them, remember that) drove someone out of journalism is … Well, look, maybe this guy’s skin was really thin, but I gotta tell you, after a while complaints from readers become like hammering and you don’t even notice them anymore. A good 2/3 of newspaper readers live to complain. They get up in the morning looking for something to be angry about and if you’re doing your job right you give it to them. That hardly sounds like something that would drive someone out of the job.
Now, censorship, that’s much more valid, and if you’re going to talk about it publicly (EVERYONE CAN SEE THE INTERNET) then you owe it to the people you trashed on your way out the door to tell them if it really was all their fault for being big meanies, or if they were right all along.