I may be misreading meritt's comment, but it seems to me that meritt is criticizing the author of the article for not addressing the situation when it happened; not criticizing the author for blogging about it. In fact, meritt seems to be suggesting that the author should blog about the incident, though meritt thinks that a blog about the author resolving the situation by confronting it directly would be more effective in promoting productive discussion.
(To be absolutely clear, I am not a fan of criticizing the author for handling or not handling the situation in any particular way.)
I might be reading that all wrong; certainly I am being charitable to meritt and giving him/her the benefit of the doubt. There is a decent chance that I've gone to far, and that you are entirely correct. However your "charitable" reading of his/her post is certainly not the "most charitable".
(To be absolutely clear, I am not a fan of criticizing the author for handling or not handling the situation in any particular way.)
I might be reading that all wrong; certainly I am being charitable to meritt and giving him/her the benefit of the doubt. There is a decent chance that I've gone to far, and that you are entirely correct. However your "charitable" reading of his/her post is certainly not the "most charitable".