.....I'm sorry, that was rude, and I apologize most heartily. Carolyn Koo is a most excellent and professional author and in no way did I mean to insult or offend her, or her decision to include Mr. Simmons' blurb. Mr. Simmons is entitled to his opinion, whether or not his column is more editorial than factual. Like anyone else, and whether or not I agree with his point of view, Freedom of Speech is an American civil right, and I would be the first person in line to defend that.

HowEVER, and this might be an unreasonable expectation, but I find this recent trend in internet journalism of emoting and personal opining disturbing. While I realize that ESPN has a large male following, I simply do NOT want to know how Mr. Simmons feels about "Jane's" sexual attractiveness. That is HIS business, and I would not necessarily expect to pick up a hard copy publication of this editorial in a magazine, and read about it ....why so NOW on the internet???

The point could have been gotten across in a less overt way. Simply referring to "Jane" as "the office sexpot," or something similar, would have served. To compare Peyton List to every actress from the past thirty years, and then declare her exalted beyond all others strikes me as both juvenile and unprofessional. I believe I speak for the other fictional ladies of Mad Men when I say that, by way of the besotted gushing, Mr. Simmons is potentially alienating around 50% of the population. From the entire work of art that is Mad Men, “Jane” is the big anchor for Mr. Simmons?

In general, isn't a journalist supposed to be impartial? Aren't they supposed to REPORT rather than OPINE? If I were to pick up a hard copy of any major news magazine or even a celebrity magazine, including Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition, I would not expect to find the author waxing on about his fan adoration. However, internet articles from the same networks or publications are becoming less and less professional. More and more I am surprised by the lack of standards and sophistication in internet journalism....by the things that just fall through the cracks. Things that used to matter, but have fallen by the wayside, or been buried under a mountain of Terabytes.

A recent, extreme case in point was a MAJOR network publishing on its website an article about a certain celebrity. The article was VERY poorly written, and consisted almost entirely of listing and rating the various body parts of this celebrity. Believe it or not, several people wrote in to complain. This was a major network’s website, and this article was on the home page, up front and center. The article was appalling, and read more like a 13-year-old, not-very-stable Sci-Fi geek just starting his own fan site. It was both creepy, and inappropriate.

Partnering this more “low-brow” trend with the anonymity promoting all that free expression, the rapid turnover, and you've got yourself a Tasmanian Devil spiraling downward at high velocity. Without pointing a finger at any one cause, I think Perez Hilton’s “journalistic” style has been astonishingly influential on our culture. While I do enjoy Perez occasionally, the phenomenon of him brings to mind the 2006 Mike Judge film “Idiocracy,” all about the “dumbing-down” of our society. The 2006 film takes place 500 years in the tragic-comic future, and maps a direct route back through time to exactly what we are doing wrong in the present day.

It might seem like I am splitting hairs or overreacting here, but I can’t help but get the impression it’s the sign of an overall sloppy decline in the quality of journalistic standards out there, at least on the internet. Visit any celebrity "comments" section, and you will be shocked at the number of people who apparently know how to use a computer, and have the time to use it, but have unbelievably little concept of the English language. The dreaded, possessive, "apostrophe S" that is insidiously working its way through our written culture (under the guise of plurality) is just another example of this ostensible decline.

While saying all that, I would in no way include AMC or its writers in that category. This is one of the most professional websites and forums I've ever seen, and we are all impressed with its editor, Clayton Neuman. Anger and the written word can be a malignant alliance. To paraphrase the very true Chinese proverb “One word spoken in anger is worth a thousand moments of sorrow.” Again, I apologize for being rude, and thank AMC for a great place to speak our minds.