You know, I spent last year subscribed to a bunch of these niche journals with the hope of broadening my intellectual intake. I tried to get a good variety - e

You know, I spent last year subscribed to a bunch of these niche journals with the hope of broadening my intellectual intake. I tried to get a good variety - everything from Jacobin (socialist) to National Affairs (neocon). I'm not sure it was worthwhile. They're full of the same flood of opinions you get from the broader internet - in much more flowery prose. N+1 is one of those journals and this article falls into that same category. It's an opinion piece about opinion pieces written in unnecessarily flowery and meandering prose. After reaching its conclusion my main thought was "It took you that long to say _that_?" Ironically, that very reaction is one of the things the author is railing against. There is plenty to pick apart in our media landscape today. With perhaps the most challenging question to address being "When, if ever, is an opinion too dangerous to freedom to be given a platform?" Closely followed by "How can we improve the tenor and character of the national debate, given the constraints of media economics?" But I really don't feel like this article succeeded in providing a coherent or cogent criticism of that landscape. Instead it just read like a flowery screed against opinions the author didn't like.