I've been critical as well. But I'm happy to share the offending tweets so the blog apologists can continue to apologize:

"I have worked with dozens of homeless families. They are no greater risk to you than any other unknown guest. To suggest that their presence creates a "right to know" is wrong and harmful. To suggest *that* is the moral question associated with homelessness is shameful To use it as clickbait for a blog that engages in amoral marketing tactics is revolting. To be blunt, homeless NY families have just as much interest in staying at the Radisson JFK as elitist bloggers like [MENTION=218863]garyl[/MENTION]eff do. We often pretend the miles & points hobby has no connection to the rest of the world. Travel should expand your perspective, not narrow it."

I'm not surprised that there are people on here who support media figures blocking people with different views about the things they publicly say. It's a view not uncommon in America today, after all. But I think you have to have a thicker skin. A writer would want his ideas going out to people who may not agree with him.

To me, a media figure who uses his or her Twitter account for "professional" purposes should only block viewers if they are engaging in regular trolling or abusive behavior. This may have been the 3rd or 4th time in as many years I've had any interaction with him on Twitter, on a post many people were criticizing him for.