I completely agree with your call for civility. As someone with high regard for Ayn Rand, it frustrates me when writers utilize ad hominem abuse, often without the benefit of reading her non-fiction, let alone her fiction.

I'm afraid, though, in this world where wealth is forcibly taken from some and given to others, civility might become the exception rather than the rule - if it hasn't already. It is likely to be something we'll just have to learn to live with.

From what I've read, in the late 19th century, before mandated wealth transfers, America was a much more civil place. I'd bet if laissez-faire were ever to return, common courtesy would reappear.

The majority of the comments were impassioned, indeed. The truth matters much to many people, as does even-handed, unbiased reporting, especially from a media outlet all of us (yes, even Conservatives) financially support. If this is distasteful to you, perched high up in the rarefied NPR air, it is clearly because you would rather attack and dismiss the messengers (we cretins who may not be your regular readers) then listen to the message.

50+ comments!! This has to be a record for Business Desk!!

As the other Business Desk segment has noted, a person can have emotional attitude toward an issue even if they have limited understanding of the issue involved. In most cases, the less you know, the more emotional you can become. If I know nothing about how the Global Financial Crisis came about, I will most likely join the chorus of hatred. However, once you read more on how the crisis came about, you will reach a different conclusion. "Everyone else is doing it" is the most powerful force in human society.

There is definitely a place in the world for civility and good old-fashioned manners, which may be what you are talking about. But there's also a place for taking a stand about what's right and what's wrong, and like it or not, what's wrong about Edmund Andrews' story struck a nerve with many people. I believe that the ire that got expressed in hundreds of blog comments in the last week was born in what seemed to be the unwillingness of the Times omsbudsman and various "friends of Ed's" to come right out and say that his omission of germane facts was just plain wrong. Not wrong, but... just wrong. I find it worrisome that a reporter writing a nonfiction book would leave out facts that would perhaps lead the reader to a conclusion he doesn't wish them to reach. I have to wonder if he has done similar things while writing stories as a reporter. I want the truth, not just the truth the reporter wants me to know. And yes, the thought of that makes me angry.

Unfortunately for us, America has become a place where shame and ridicule rule.

Your piece was fine, and Andrews' explanations were too.

Who cares if the book is accurate or not anyway? Don't buy it if you think its a fraud, but don't try to "right/wrong" the author into groveling to you. If thats ones attitude, then perhaps some psycho-therapy is in order.

People (including you and I) buy goods frequently, if not always based on misconceptions and outright lies. Thats pure unadulterated free-market capitalism at its best, or haven't you noticed?

Lighten up, people.

To Jane: I have no problem with people taking a stand for what they see as right against wrong. I just think anger is a bit much in this case, and is even hazardous to our collective health. Andrews was more candid about his own failings -- and those of his new wife -- than reporters almost ever are. He said his wife was an overspender, both in the book and in the NewsHour interview.

"Lead the reader to a conclusion he doesn't wish them to reach"? Like what? That he and his wife were responsible consumers? Everything in the book says precisely the opposite. He condemns himself more than anyone. He simply suggests that he had plenty of help.

And then people fulminate that he didn't reveal the fact that his wife, for whom the account is clearly humiliating, went bankrupt as well?

Disapprove all you want. Say so in a public comment page, like this one. I myself think it's a material fact that he should not have omitted. But I can also understand why. You CAN'T? And get publicly ANGRY about it? And defend those who write "Elitist bastards"? "Disgusting"? "Prison"?

"Denver's" comment is the one that resonates most for me:

'If this is distasteful to you, perched high up in the rarefied NPR air, it is clearly because you would rather attack and dismiss the messengers (we cretins who may not be your regular readers) then listen to the message.'

I admit, my first instinct is to make wise-ass jokes at 'Denver's' expense: about the confusion of PBS and NPR, say, or the hi-falutin' air I supposedly inhale. But when I read that someone corresponding with me thinks that I think s/he's a "cretin" while I'm rarefied, I realize a different response is in order.

I'm a smart guy. Born that way, it seems. Went to good schools. In other words, lucky -- especially to have been born when I was, where I was. (Stalin's Russia might have been a bad idea. Or Pol Pot's Cambodia.)

But let's get something straight: I breathe the same air everyone else does, even at my lofty elevation about 125 feet above sea level. (And another 5'10" If I'm standing.) I don't think of myself as one whit worthier than any other hominid on the planet. And I would never think of another human being, address or in any way treat her or him as a "cretin" which, according to mentalhealth.net, "originally reflected the promising perspective that people with mental retardation were 'still Christian' and should thus be treated with kindness."

Kindness. A little tenderness. A lot of understanding. That's what this page is about. I don't always live up to its standards. But I try. That's all I ask of others.