A true nobody of uncertain ancestry by the name of Joel Mathis blogs for Philadelphia Magazine for some reason.
From his lofty, shaky perch, he advises others of their shortcomings, such as a recent post about the Inquirer, which I wouldn't have seen except that one of the Inquirer owners, George Norcross, forwarded it around.
That means Mathis is supportive of Norcross, which is OK, but Mathis is wholly dismissive of former Inquirer Editor Bill Marimow, which is not. Mathis isn't fit to lick up Marimow's vomit.
Mathis starts a shallow post on 10/10 like this: "The fight over Bill Marimow's job is not a fight for the future of the Philadelphia Inquirer. It's a fight over how much dignity the Inquirer will be allowed to retain as it slowly dies. And it is shocking how many people inside the Inquirer—from the ownership to the newsroom—don't seem to understand that."
Mathis then lectures Marimow on the future of journalism, which is digital, we all know that, but demonstrates his stupidity by writing the Inquirer will die. If it exists digitally, it will not die. How could Mathis not understand that, or express his ideas so poorly? This is simply shoddy.
There seems to be an element of personal pique, too, as Mathis references a previous post of his criticizing Marimow's vision. Mathis lectures on what he does not understand, but I believe he is on the "youth" side of the digital divide and his brain hasn't fully formed yet.
Mathis is better suited working on things he has a greater capacity for, such as today's campaign to get Hall & Oates into the Hall of Fame. (I agree with him, which proves that his blind squirrel can find an occasional acorn.)
For your interest, here's the first page of his rantings (he seems to have a lot of time to blog, probably reflecting the knee-jerk, rather than thoughtful, nature of it):
The thing that caught my eye: Zero comments.