This does not make logical sense. His original argument is basically "they took err jerbs!!" claiming that people who contribute unpaid articles to for-profit

This does not make logical sense. His original argument is basically "they took err jerbs!!" claiming that people who contribute unpaid articles to for-profit companies are unethically depriving "real" journalists of jobs. This follow up article is his defense on why it is ok to blog for free, even though that should logically be unethical as well. Assuming his original point is valid (i.e. it is unethical to contribute something for free which might remove a job from someone who wants to do the same thing for money), then surely blogging is unethical, as there are many professional bloggers. However, his original point is clearly incorrect, so it's not really worth debating.