I should know better than to respond to a post on BoingBoing. When it veers into politics, it’s too often fluffernutter. But this post, by a guest blogger, was hard to swallow:

[This 1968 Rolling Stones story denouncing the Yippies’ tactics], in the middle of the Vietnam War, one year before Woodstock would prove just how wrong Rolling Stone was.

The author is being glib. It was vicious in-fighting over tactics that defined the counter-culture at just that very moment. (The SDS tore itself apart the following summer.)

Did Woodstock have political ramifications? No. (Though maybe Altamont did.) And all of this revisionism to what end? To say Rolling Stone was once a political magazine?

Once again, is the author living under a rock? Matt Taibbi’s piece on Goldman Sachs is the most overtly political piece of journalism on the collapse of our economy published to date in a mass publication.

Here’s a link to Google Trends for “Taibbi” in the last 12 months. The spike in April was for his previous Rolling Stone story on AIG and the bailout.