I'm sorry, I'm jaded. I remember Spy magazine from the late '80s and early '90s. Behind all the wit there was a point: there seems to be a tendency in publishing circles to want to assume a mantle of being authoritative (e.g. "the Buddhist review" ) whilst pushing a narrative that is hardly uniform and representative of things as they are.
That's the prerogative of anyone, including myself as a consumer, reader, and potential critic who is trying to reconcile minor and major cognitive dissonances. Like, what did the Rockefeller Foundation have to do with the foundation of Spy? Or Frederick Lenz's estate in continuing its funding?
Spy came along at roughly the same time that Tricycle did, from the same city. Spy was funnier, more cynical, and avoided worship of the Dalai Lama. It also had better graphics. And had some very surprising, um coincidences.
So, yeah, I'm at peace with the "Buddhist media." In some ways we're alike. I wish Tricycle were more like Spy.
And while I'm happy as a clam regarding Blogisattva awards and what-not, to me, it's just a tad unseemly to put blurbs on your blog lauding your blogging from "name" Buddhists. That's me. That's my narrative. Yours might vary, and I've no problem with that. It's grist for all.