1. “Football is the most exciting thing that has ever happened to me,” wrote Jonathan Chait in his sprawling defense of the sport (“What Liberals Get Wrong About Football,” October 6–19). The article left readers sharply divided. “This piece really spoke to me,” commented Weakcoder. “As a bookish kid, football was a godsend. I could prove I wasn’t weak, I could socialize within a pretext/context … My lived experience was incomprehensible aggression off the field, and comprehensible aggression on it. Give me the field version any day.” Commenter Symbot agreed: “I’m sympathetic to the need for rituals in youth. I had my ritual, my tribal experience … Warped Tours and punk shows … and those had their share of health risks, too … The feeling of confronting a world that had some dangers and stresses, that I couldn’t entirely control, but that I was being fully exposed to, outside the protective bubble provided by my parents … there was no substitute for that. I can see very well how football might serve that purpose for a lot of young men out there. Now we’ve just gotta face the bigger systemic problems: the corporatism, denial, and endemic violence that turns youth football—a great outlet for young people—into the entrenched, exploitative institution called the NFL.” Others, though, felt the piece missed the mark entirely. Dan Diamond from Forbes broke down what he called “the big problems with Chait’s argument. 1. Chait understates the brain-injury risk: Football concussions are a real concern. 2. Chait misinterprets the arrest numbers: Domestic violence is a huge problem in the NFL. 3. Chait claims that football has a mystical ability to make boys into men, and reduce the risk of violence … The author dismisses the facts and ignores several studies in favor of Chait’s personal anecdotes about why playing high school football 20 years ago was so awesome.” Commenter Sean.Bennett agreed: “Chait’s piece is full of argumentative fallacies and a bizarrely mindless traditionalism that isn’t present in much of his other work. Besides the weird appeal to ‘masculinity’ and his assertion that football is the only possible safe outlet for such, his entire argument is basically ‘I remember getting good feelings out of football and everything with MY team was fine.’ ” Many, though, stuck to commenting on the writing itself. “I’m not sure how to recommend this Jonathan Chait football piece highly enough without diminishing it,” wrote @JonCoppage. “Exceptionally well done. One of those you file away as a writer for reference on the craft.”
2. Gabriel Sherman’s story about CNN’s controversial CEO, Jeff Zucker, was praised by at least one commenter for its balanced approach (“‘I Did Something to Piss God Off a Long Time Ago,’” October 6–19). “Very interesting take on someone who is so obviously and firmly grounded on the other side of the aisle from the author,” wrote commenter Deadeye. “Amazing degree of compassion and plain old balance.” Despite this portrayal, plenty of readers used this opportunity to air their dissatisfaction with Zucker, for example: “The Zuck doesn’t turn things around,” wrote commenter BriteBlonde1. “He turns things to (insert your own favorite word here that won’t make it through the censors).” Erik Wemple from the Washington Post thought Sherman left out a key element of the story: “Cost is a big topic at CNN,” he wrote, “and one that the profile just grazes. Over the summer, Zucker made it clear to CNN staffers that they’d have to do ‘less with less’ at a network that will be losing staff in the coming months. That’ll make it harder for Zucker to push the network to its long-since-surrendered spot atop the cable news scramble. In June 2013, Zucker said ‘Ask me again in three years’ when he was asked about his timeline for preeminence. Now he’s telling Sherman, ‘It’s not a path to No. 1 here. What we talk about is making the network essential and better.’ ”
3. “Each of these machines gives its human operator the same power: It allows us to project our intelligence into the air, and to exert our influence over vast expanses of space,” wrote Benjamin Wallace-Wells in his exploration of the many uses of drones (“Drones and Everything After,” October 6–19). “Another outstanding piece,” wrote commenter AlyceInWonderland. “Thank you.” Some were put off by the length of the feature. “This article isn’t an article,” wrote Danlewis. “It’s a BOOK.” Many approved of the web design and the writing: “Love the story design + cover art,” wrote @lainnafader. @nbj914 and other readers were impressed with the animated drones that illustrated the online version of the story. The Daily Beast’s @ericpape summed it up nicely. “Awesome article on drones,” he wrote, “with little drones all over the page.”
Corrections: In the “Approval Matrix” (October 6–19), a photograph purporting to be of Eric Bolling was of another Fox anchor, Greg Gutfeld. In “ ‘I Did Something to Piss God Off a Long Time Ago’ ” (October 6–19), we stated that Ben Silverman was fired. In fact, Silverman resigned.