i want to know why you still read slate

Slate is too bored with ER to cover the final episode...

We have approached both staff writers and a series of reliable correspondents, inviting them to weigh in on the final episode and the legacy of the drama's 15-year run. No one wanted the assignment.

...so they're turning the job over to their readers and asking them to file reports on the series finale.

There's a whole mess of interestingness packed into this little nugget (Slate's wink wink nudge nudge that ER's just not good enough for them to cover (but it's fine if their readers do), the attempt at editorial direction for contributors, the obvious and lame poke at Clooney, the fact that I'm sure their readers will do a better job of it than they would have), but I'm just too busy to unpack it all.

Instead, I'm leaving it to you, my readers, to do the hard editorial work for me. Why do you still read Slate? Is Slate right for not covering the ER finale? Should they be paying more attention to culture that's actually popular? Is their editorial voice as grating to you as it is to me? Leave all your thoughts on Slate not covering ER in the comments, and I'll pick the best ones and repackage them as my own content in a future blog post!

Comments

[Cat Mikkelsen]

E what?

[G-Co]

Michael,

I never read it -- except when someone else's article or blog refers to something outrageous written by Dahlia Lithwick that I just have to read with my own eyes.

Use this as you wish.

G-Co

[David Wertheimer]

I'd tell you about how I read Slate but I've just got too much going on to get into the details. I'm leaving it to sub-commenters following my comment to get into the specifics....

[Andrew Anker]

I'd rather accuse you of plagiarism. I used "interestingness" in a blog post yesterday (http://www.quid.pro/2009/03/arc-of-a-golden-child.html) and it's clear that you copied that from me. I own you.

[Owen Thomas]

From "The Re-education of Michael Kinsley," by Ken Auletta, The New Yorker, May 13, 1996, a profile of Slate's founding editor:

On some things, Kinsley was implacable. To Esther Dyson's claim that a good Internet editor was "an intellectual bartender" who listened more than he spoke, Kinsley conceded only, "I have come several steps in her direction. Originally, I said no to bulletin boards. But I think Esther has the idea that this technology changes the nature of life itself. I think she's slightly carried away. Even if her vision of the Internet as a community for current users is true, it will be less true for future users. I don't want to sound like an arrogant asshole who's become an Internet fascist, but there is a reason that some people get paid as writers and some don't. I don't want to go to a restaurant and be told, 'This is a community restaurant, and the guy at the next table is cooking for you!' "