I posted this inquiry over on Mark's blog:

now wait. You're sounding like people who boycott advertisers in order to get The Simpsons cancelled because it offends their sensibilities. You don't have to read Book Babes; most people don't. I never bothered until I ran across your petition, and the question that comes to mind is: why give them all this attention if they aren't worthy of it?

....but he hasn't replied. Any thoughts?

I can't speak for Mark, of course, and I'm sure he'll answer in his own time, but I'm not uncomfortable with sounding a little like people who boycott advertisers to get shows they dislike off the air. Not too much, at least I hope I can put up a better argument than some of them do if called upon to do so...

I wouldn't say the Babes aren't worthy of attention; I'd say they aren't worthy of praise. As to why their presence or absence matters, well, the first thing that comes to mind is that they represent "book culture" to the largely inside baseball crowd at Poynter, and I think both the culture and the crowd could be better served.

I can understand the individual points easily enough: (1) you dislike the column (or find its quality lacking, if that's closer to the truth); (2) you feel the site deserves better; (3) you'd like the column to be replaced with something else more in tune with the goals of the site, as you understand them.

There are many columnists I dislike for a variety of reasons, and I know I'm not alone in some of those cases. The same is true of talk show hosts and others who put their opinions out into the airwaves or onto print for general consumption. For example, I find Rush Limbaugh not only unlikable, but intellectually dishonest in a wide variety of ways. The same is true of Ann Coulter. The way I deal with this two-fold. (1) I don't listen to or read their work; (2) if for some reason I can't avoid their work, and I'm really put out, I write a letter to them or to their editors.

What bothers me in your approach is going to the next level, that is, trying to have persons whose work you dislike for whatever reasons fired. Would I banish Limbaugh from the airwaves if I had that power? It's certainly tempting, but it would also be wrong, I think, for a variety of reasons having to do with free speech and the importance of variety of opinion.

But I'll leave this alone now; I just felt compelled to say something, given the fact that this petition makes me uncomfortable. Thank you for responding to my original inquiry.

I wouldn't argue with you about the importance of variety of opinion, but I don't think that, say, taking Limbaugh off the air or replacing the Book Babes if I had a chance would necessarily be a threat to free speech, since I don't think any action committed by any individual or institution other than government or its authorities genuinely constitutes a threat to the First Amendment. There's no constitutional guarantee of employment for writers or media pundits, nor should there be.

The problem with the Book Babes isn't what they believe. I disagree with a lot of book reviewers, columnists, and bloggers, many of whom make their arguments quite well. The problem I have with the Book Babes is less with what they believe, because it's possible to debate their ideas just like anybody else's, than with how lamely they express it, because frankly they're letting the side down. .