Circle Jerking With Spragens

I've barely made it past the first sentence in Spragens' self-defence. What's got me extremely peeved is this:

Turns out, when you write about bloggers, they write back. So it's been one hell of a circle-jerk over the past week as computer jockeys around the country weighed in and inveighed upon the Bill Hobbs affair,

Let me get this straight. If Spragens covers the story, it's legitimate news. But once anyone else decides to have an opinion they're just wanking?

Then we have THIS patronising nugget:

First, for those with day jobs, a quick recap of recent events

To Which the Katherinian Automatic Response Generator Says:

1. So, I guess you're not addressing this to Bill, who thanks in part to you no longer HAS a day job.
2. Everyone I read in the "clubby local blogosphere" has a day job. Every.single.one. And most of us are well-liked and well-respected at those jobs. We're publishers, ministers, designers, contractors, and SAHMs. And marketing professionals. And medical librarians. And musicians. And funnier than you are. Without trying.
3. Bite me.

Is an ersatz journalist with mainstream media credentials a fair target?

I don't know, sir. But once we decide for certain, you could be next.

UPDATE:

What is it with the Scene staff and their derision toward the blogosphere? Why all this snide mockery about everyone's employment status? Liz Garrigan's rebuttal STARTS OFF with another swipe.

How many bloggers actually have jobs? We don’t know, except to say one fewer now than before.

Well, clearly they don't actually read the blogs they so charmingly patronise. Because 99% of them mention the various jobs people have. With a few exceptions (Nashville Knucklehead) I know pretty much what everyone on my blogroll does for a living. And they all work. Even the SAHMs work. I get that it's "in" for Real Journalists ® to patronise the blogosphere. I just hope the staff of the Scene realises that next time they come out with a long sad story about a person who can't hold down a job for health reasons, and I write a letter to the editor about the inequities of working people footing the bill for TennnCare and I get about 10 emails back from the Scene's editor and the mother of the woman in the story and other folks they'll think about the way THEY'VE denegrated the jobless in these two columns. In other words, in Scene language it's wrong to question a person who doesn't work--if they've published a piece in the Scene. But it's perfectly alright to mock gainfully-employed people if they make the Scene look bad. And quite fine to be derisive about someone's job status.