Assuming that we still care about words having meanings, meaning what you say and communicating in a fashion that does not leave the intended recipient guessing what the hell you're talking about:
If that's the case the writer could say "I don't think Paula Poundstone was a good match for To Tell the Truth," presenting evidence to support that fact which is in abundant supply. He could say "I thought it was disrespectful how she would ignore the game to make non sequitur jokes," or "Paula Poundstone is a square peg and the square hole is something like 'Wait Wait,' which is a nothing game that focuses more on the panelists being funny than on the actual score, at least up until Lightning Fill in the Blank." Or he could have indeed said that while the first season was better in terms of gameplay, that Paula dragged it down. Or really any of thousands of other things. But he didna, he couched it in vagaries and in irony, so I questioned him on it.
Use your words to communicate your point clearly and stand behind what you say instead of being the millionth customer to overuse the word "irony." (I was going to plump for 'misuse,' but Kevin has a point about it being plausible. I maintain it was a poor choice instead of merely the wrong choice.)
