Four of the last five weeks, the same person (based on IP addresses, at least) has left a comment on my Editor's Note. They work the same sort of theme: Dan Gibson sucks.
A recap:
"This sad little paper. How far it has fallen. Gibson is just a symptom."
""Fellow" journalists? That's a reach. Oh, I guess you mean your book, Besides the Bible. Ground-breaker, that is. So to speak."
"The genius of Dan's columns is their self-infatuated inter-changeability. Key is "I, me, me, me, me and I." The rest is just filler. Plug in a new topic, and you're good to go."
"Dan Gibson talking about authenticity. That's rich."
I don't mention this to say that I can't (or don't have the desire to) handle criticism. I get it, it's part of the job (for better or likely worse). It's not even to say that people can't leave anonymous comments, since I think the possibility of good (someone having the opportunity to state their opinion without the fear of retribution) outweighs the bad (trolls) that comes from our decision to allow them.
It's more that I don't understand why someone would feel the need to spend even a minute of their time this way. No one makes you read the Weekly or even more specifically the Editor's Note. It's not forced upon you somehow, so if the paper is "sad" or I'm a self-infatuated pseudo-journalist, just walk on by. I have my guess of who this person is, but it doesn't really matter. I actually wish for whoever it is more happiness than could possibly come from caring so much about me.
But hey, at some point on Saturday, if the trend holds up, maybe "Anne" (or "Joni" or whatever name this particular user is going by this week) will provide some insight online regarding what I've done that's worth taking a bit of time out of their weekend to heckle me at TucsonWeekly.com. I sort of hope not, though.
Dan Gibson, Editor
