The Washington Post article should be read with the following in mind: First, the sample of the Post article was simply neither adequate nor representative. It was based on a convenience sample and as such not much could be made to generalize to the whole field under discussion. This practice is obvisously similar to that of many researchers who choose to look at a few cases and then make a large claim that is often not warranted. The knowledge claim has nothing to do with qualitative or quantitative research. It is a matter of the validity of that claim. Second, interpretation of the Post's observation of the field through selective interviews and readings of the publications involved is bound to be problematic and unconvincing precisely because that observation was partial and framed from a journalistic point of view. The outer frame often determines how much one may see. Third, the Post article did raise a challenging question to all researchers who claim to be doing some sort of ground-breaking work: So what? If neither new knowledge nor penetrating insight is produced, what is the point? Tsan-Kuo Chang Professor School of Journalism and Mass Communication University of Minnesota-Twin Cities