This is an interesting example of the structure of many modern (frequently political) blog posts. You start with an historical statement that has proved to be

This is an interesting example of the structure of many modern (frequently political) blog posts. You start with an historical statement that has proved to be wrong, or (for politics) incendiary, and then have a long discussion about what lead to the error. Yes, a NYTimes reviewer didn't like Sgt. Pepper. But lots of other reviewers did (Time Magazine put it on the cover, and loved it). The internet is big -- it is easy to find examples of bad predictions. And, because it is big, you no longer have to extrapolate from N=1 (although sometimes N=1 and things are repeated). I often remember the review of the new IBM VGA standard, which had no significant advantages (to the reviewer) over the older CGA. The Beatles got bad reviews because review accuracy (whatever that is) has a distribution that includes statements that do not stand the test of time.