I don't know exactly what a hack is, but the article uses a writing style that makes me think the author is short on evidence. For example: 'the Wired editor’s

I don't know exactly what a hack is, but the article uses a writing style that makes me think the author is short on evidence. For example: 'the Wired editor’s theories have no sticking power and the backlash against him has begun" "have no sticking power" is an untestable claim, and "backlash" can be as little as one person writing a blog post that says "Chris Anderson's long tail theory is wrong, wrong, wrong." The only specific examples cited of evidence are a reference to Rupert Murdoch and the discussion of a study by Page and Bud. To me, it's pretty unimpressive article, but I will confess to holding a previous conviction that Orlowski is a pinhead. I'd be glad to hear counter-arguments.