Generally speaking I am pretty sympathetic to self-publishers. I read a few self-published books every month and I am a member of the POD People review site which specialises in reviews of self-published books. So I went into the post "self-published author discrimination" with a reasonably open mind. What I didn't realise is that the title refers to how a self-published author should discriminate against epublished authors and blogs.
With no apparent awareness of the irony the author writes: "Don't lump the good ones in with the bad. Believe me, I've read "published" novels that are worse than a "self-published" one I've read... and don't even get me started on "e-published" ... If you're going to tar us self-published authors and close your doors to us on review sites etc, then you should do the same to e-published authors, because there's a lot of books out there, even those put out by the so-called big e-publishing houses, that are pretty dire." So apparently the answer to reviewers lumping in a group of authors together and not covering them... is to do the same to another group of authors by suggesting that epublished books are particularly notable for poor quality (rather than, for example, saying some are good and some are bad--and it is quite impossible to make generalisations about all ebooks).
Oh, and don't get her started on blogs. Apparently this is another group of writers who shouldn't be respected even though they are apparently dissing ebooks just like she wants: "Recently though, I've seen a rise in the number of review blogs. Not proper sites but just a readers blog basically who go out there with their review policies and making out that they're pretty big news, but then deny all self-published authors, and even sometimes e-published." I understand the virtues of a good rant, but to say people should treat self-published books on their individual merit but then suggest ebooks tend to be crap, and blogs aren't "real' review sites rather undermines the message.