Harold Meyerson's reading comprehension could use a little work

I must say, Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson took me aback this morning in his post on Native Intelligence. Here's how he opened:

Mark Lacter is absolutely right to have characterized me as a "left-winger" in his indignant response to my Washington Post column about the problems attendant to the Koch Brothers buying the L.A. Times.

But here's the thing: I wasn't responding to his column. I never even mentioned Meyerson, much less characterize him. Was the guy reading the same post I wrote? Oh, and by the way, I would hardly describe my post as "indignant." Bemused is more like it. Here's what I said:

Any sale to the Kochs still seems unlikely (maybe a one-in-five chance), but the little devil in me would almost like to see the Tribune guys do the deal and have all those self-anointed arbiters of journalistic propriety raise holy hell.

Meyerson was mostly hot and bothered about my singling out Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein's suggestion that newsroom employees should threaten to walk off their jobs if the paper's new owner doesn't commit to quality journalism. "Without the journalism, there are no readers," Pearlstein wrote. But instead of laying out the rationale for such an idea (what I consider to be idiotic), Meyerson merely throws around his colleague's credentials: "Pulitzer Prize winner" and "widely regarded as the single best business columnist in the United States." Well, pardon us little church mice at LAO!! Seriously, Meyerson should know better than to trumpet resumes rather than ideas. Not one of his finer moments.