BS vs. MSM, Round MGCCLXVIII

Bloggers' response to this New Republic article by Christine Rosen, which criticizes Glenn Reynolds and the blogosphere in general, has been consistently negative, from what I've seen. So how can the author and the rest of the magazine react? Some options:

1. Since the piece is being criticized from both the left and the right, it must be fair and accurate. Praise themselves for non-partisan, clear-headed independent-mindedness.
2. The blogosphere rallying against their piece is a perfect example of the blogger triumphalism and "techno-utopianism" that they were criticizing. Praise themselves for coming up with a theory that is even capable of accounting for the reactions that it causes.
3. If the blogs are getting defensive about it then it was obviously a hard-hitting piece that struck close to home. Praise themselves for speaking truth to bloggers.
4. Maybe there is some truth to the criticisms, and the piece did engage in hasty overgeneralizations without a fair look at the evidence. Chastise themselves for succumbing so readily to their preconceptions.

Care to take a guess at which of the four is least likely?