( The following three paragraphs should be read aloud in the voice of Foghorn Leghorn).

I'm no fancy big-city journalist, just a simple country kill-floor worker in a JBS Swift slaughter house. I've developed a tolerance for organic discord.

Yet I'm annoyed by the messy thinking that dribbles helplessly throughout this supposed rebuttal.

More than that, I'm irritated by the obvious purpose behind a loud 'rebuttal' of obviously poor quality that finishes by saying I agree and I thought it first.

It was written because the author felt compelled to write something that he and others could point to as a "rebuttal," a response. It doesn't matter if the rebuttal is good or bad, true or untrue (bad and untrue, as it happens); what matters is, now it's "been rebutted."

Let me grab my skinning knife. Unpronounceable Journalism Wunderkind, let's you and me sit down and talk:

Graham's contention is that there aren't magazines that routinely cost significantly more per page than the average for their format. If that is false, then you've rebutted him. It's not sufficient to note that the length of those magazines shows some variation.

Empirically, it seems that Graham's premise is sound. Magazines all seem to have similar price per page. The next place where you can rebut him is by answering the question: Why? It's either because the content of all magazines is equally valuable, or because the content is irrelevant to the price of the magazine. Does the price vary, at least, with the format? Well, of course. Large, glossy magazines cost more per page. But not more than other large, glossy magazines.

Not rebutted - and no attempt was made.

Graham says that publishers get rich by selling lots of books, not by charging more for better or more popular books. You say, "nuh-uh, Sarah Palin made lots of money."

Uh. I'm not sure your training in journalism has equipped you to realize it, but that's not a rebuttal. That's not anything.

Not rebutted - no attempt was made.

'The NYT in paper is yesterday's news.' Why, how dare he! Well, I never! It's 'snotty and snarky.' Ah, and it's "inaccurate." Because -- and this, see, is where you give your reason and perform your debunking and unbunking and generally get the bunk out -- because you're pretty sure that there's stuff in there someone hasn't read yet. Never mind that the NYT itself published those stories online.

Yesterday.

Finally, the question. "Why has the price mostly depended on the format, not the content? Why didn't better content cost more?" (Italics mine). You say, loudly, that better content is more profitable -- because of volume.

Then you have the nerve to conclude by saying that you had all of the ideas that Graham had, and you just have no respect for his sloppy thinking and reasoning.

You didn't refute, or even address, a single point made in the essay. The "sloppy thinking and errors" were entirely your own. But now, you've "addressed" it. Back-pats all around, face has been saved, as long as we overlook the fact that your piece is drivel.

( Perhaps I'm wrong here. I often am. Certainly, you have domain knowledge that could have contributed greatly to this discussion; I'd read any substantive contributions with pleasure. )