A young philosopher at a top research university writes:
"The thing that always astonishes me is that they [bloggers, journalists etc.] put
on this air of pained affront if an academic gets short with them – ‘I
don’t expect this tone from an educator’ and all that jazz. Jesus, they
should have been in a room with Jerry ‘I just have one question; was your paper a joke?’ Fodor, or Kim ‘but there’s no fucking evidence for that!’ Sterelny.
Or most of the economists I know. Where do so many people get this idea
that academic discourse is conducted by people wondering if they could
regretfully venture to take issue with distinguished colleagues who are
respectfully suggesting an emendation?"

Where, indeed?

UPDATE:  Philosopher Tad Brennan at Cornell writes with an explanation:

Journalists are surprised that academics can be short with them because they last met academics in the classroom, and most professors are kind and generous when dealing with students.  Serious academics save their scathing put-downs for colleagues and equals–I doubt that those quotes from Fodor and Sterelny document interactions with students.

Instead of feeling pained and affronted, the bloggers and journalists should take it as a compliment: ‘hey, those academics are treating me like an equal!’  That can help to salve the bruises, anyhow. And it also shows why a sharp-tongued critique directed at a non-student is no betrayal of the "tone" appropriate to an "educator". If you are my student, then I have an obligation to be your educator; if not, not.

That certainly describes my own sentiments (and practices) exactly.

ONE MORE: This is also amusingly apt (and timely), referring as it does both to Professor Sterelny and Professor Sarkar’s latest takedown of the creationists.  As the author notes:  "anyone who thinks…bloggers should be treated with respect by academics,
simply doesn’t know shit about academe, and particularly philosophy."