I'm sure a MacArthur "genius" like David Simon can figure out how to post a comment.
But I can assure you that I did not delete his comments. I'm not even sure how to do that since I am new to p2p blog software and not a genius, MacArthur or otherwise.
Simon complains in an email that I didn't make it clear in my original blog post that his offer to the attorney general was tongue-in-cheek. Nor did I note that Holder was being playful when he "ordered" Simon to do another season of the show.
So just to be perfectly clear, no, the country's top law enforcement official did not abuse his awesome power and try to force a man to produce an HBO series against his will. And no, the humble creator of "the best TV show of all time" does not, in all seriousness, expect the attorney general to abandon an anti-drug strategy that's been around since the Nixon administration on the promise of a few more "Wire" episodes.
I'd like to note that I never wrote that the Attorney General "ordered," another season. I linked to a blog post by Sun television critic David Zurawik, who wrote that Holder "playfully ordered" another season.
We all know Simon likes to have his say, so below is his email in full.
If you still have more you need to get off your chest, David, go ahead and give posting another try.
I accept that a certain amount of snark is my due, now and then. And I accept that for a couple years now, Laura Vozzella has been no friend of mine, given some previous arguments.
But a certain amount of integrity is required in this dynamic.
It is one thing for Laura to pretend, for the sake of a blog item, that my tongue isn't in my cheek when I tell the AG that he needs to end the drug war to get another season of a television show. And it is one thing for her to omit in that item the tone and tenor of the AG's initiating remarks to me: That he was "ordering" a sixth season and that he was a "very powerful man." Obviously, this is playful provocation and just as obviously my reply is delivered within the same context. And it is one thing for her to use the above omissions to reach her desired conclusion of bigheadedness and arrogance, to cite the MacArthur thing and then further tweet about the 'genius' making demands with, yes, genius in quotes. Fine. I get it. She wants to go where she wants to go, and any facts that prevent this are to be obliterated. She can have at it if she wants.
But is the target then not entitled to a response?
And if the target does respond, is the journalist then so thin-skinned and censoring that she kills out the posted response as well as all other responses -- of which a couple others also pointed out that there wasn't much justification for her snark in this instance? Yet, that is what has apparently happened. Overnight, all of the replies to her item were censored. All responses have disappeared from the blog item. Run a history and see for yourselves.
This is a simple game. You can play hard at times, but you play fair. And the first rule is that if you can't take criticism, then maybe you are not the best person to be delivering it.
Come on now.