taps fingers against lips in deep thought

Doing some research for my paper for Jan's class I found this from an article "Teaching an Old Genre New Tricks: The Diary on the Internet" by Laurie McNeill:

Web diaries, though the contemporary equivalent of the vanity press, nevertheless have a potential readership of millions. These sites often reinforce the stereotype of the diary as a genre for unbridled narcissism, and indeed, since all these diarists write for a public readership, they 'super-size' the narcissism factor. And yet, if online diarists presume that their lives and their narratives merit our interest, attention, and time, in terms of readers' responses and in terms of the theoretical issues their texts raise, their presumptions are not unfounded. Some diaries receive thousands of visits, and many diarists have become famous amongst the cyber-community, even parlaying their diaries into commercial success in 'real life.' In their immediacy and accessibility, in their seemingly unmediated state, Web diaries blur the distinction between online and offline lives, 'virtual reality' and 'real life,' 'public' and 'private,' and most intriguingly for auto/biography studies, between the life and the text.

I'm feeling like I want to argue with her but I'm not sure why. I agree with her last point about bluring the distinctions in all of those categores but something about her tone, puts me off. Maybe it's the equating bloggers with narcissists. I haven't finished the article yet but I'm hoping there's more to bounce off of.