Haberman was complaining about the tendency to summarize a long piece of writing in a few words (here, only 3). Haberman's summary was more than three words, and more importantly, did not dismissively imply that such a summary was an appropriate stand-in for reading the article and/or encapsulated the article in its entirety. There was a difference of purpose/context. I didn't find it to be too ironic.

The Internet is great at the rapid dissemination of micro-communications. But let's not forget that there's merit in taking your time as well.