Letters to the Editor
softdog
Published Letters: 186 Editor's Choice: 8
-
The Fake Pose of Helplessness.
[Read the article: Mind your manners online]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To slcgrad: I am vexed that you, like Salon, is ignoring 50% of the situation I pointed out.
My point isn't that it's Salon's fault for posting inflamatory articles, but it does so while choosing to skimp on the tools and policies necessary to manage discussion boards.
I do not dispute the poor thinking and lack of manners which degrade discourse. I dispute the notion Salon has no choice but to allow it.
Salon has been around since the early days of the Web - they've witness good and bad control of online forums. It was obvious that if one of the oldest webzines opened comments it would attract the entire spectrum of responses.
By the time they did scholary papers were available on trolling and moderation, major media outlets had been burned by inept feedback management. Hell, that Letters pages bring out the kooks was known long before the net.
Yet Salon chose minimal gatekeeping: no registration, anonymous commenting, no spell check, a one sentence comments policy and moderation queue which either didn't exist or had little oversight. (I used to defend anonymous commenting, but realized I only did so because it already existed. Most forums worth reading don't offer it or are more moderated than Salon.) Then after the problem was entrenched, they've been slow to change.
The problem is not readers failed at civility but Salon doesn't do enough to manage incivility. There's been multiple essays essays complaining about the results which have said little about why Salon chose such lax methods or why they are so slow to act in a way which satifies their own complaints.
This omission is becomes more dishonest each time. One is left to guess why the lack. As said before, I suspect Salon is unwilling expend the resources for the moderation it really needs. Nor is it willing to do anything which might reduce the traffic brought in by comments.
So I'll be blunt if you aren't going to do what's necessary, suck it up and stop blaming the readers who have no power to prevent the trolls.
-
This is bad
[Read the article: Kansas O'Flaherty...Secret Agent]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Tom Batchell does a decent job with the spot illustrations for the New Yorker's Table Talk, but he clearly has no talent for comic strips. His rough style is also unsuited for sequential storytelling.
A debut strip should be designed to impress the audience. From the ugly computer font to the crap layout, this strip looks slapped this together on Microsoft Paint.
If this is the best he can produce with 15 years of experience, it's unlikely to improve. It's so bad it seems either he doesn't comic strip mechanics or is has chosen to ignore them (but not in a way whis is interesting).
As for the writing, it sucks. Toni Schlesinger may be a good journalist when it comes to quirky slice of life articles, but she has no concept of how write humor or a story. It fails as a serial for plot is merely a frame for gags and fails as a gag strip by using worse than stale spy parody.
As the defunct blog Your Webcomic is Bad and You Should Feel Bad might say, "I can't believe this is the work of two functioning adult brains. It looks a 7th grader trying to rip off Austin Powers after huffing copious amounts of paint thinner."
Honestly, you guys could easily do better. Salon is a big name capable of attracting good cartoonists - hell, plenty of bad cartoonists who could produce something more palatable.
You have Heather Harvelisky in your stable, who used to do an amazing job with Terry Colon. So why go with two people who have no fresh ideas and naught but minor fame which barely expands past their peers?
Why not pick up on - say - the excellent Cat and Girl? http://www.catandgirl.com/ Or if crude cut-and-paste is the appeal, why not Dinosaur Comics? http://www.qwantz.com/
I'm sure other readers can contribute their own list of worthy alternatives. I hope they do, because then this feature will serve some purpose.
-
Who needs sexists when you've got other women?
[Read the article: "Margot at the Wedding"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think this review would have been witty and servicable without descending into an attack Nicole Kidman's face.
By doing this Zacharek scrapes double bottom: first reinforcing the stereotype of female writer who can't get through a review without gleefully descending into gossip, then trying to pass an ornately catty brow furrow joke as some dignified rumination on Hollywood. It's just the usual creepy, sexist obsession with tearing into the age and bodies of women, with a healthy dose of the idea female celebrities are all vain liars who "mutilate" themselves.
Does Zacharek have any proof Kidman is lying? Could it be she's a stiff actress? She's 39, not a crone - at that age good skin is still possible and the illusion of unlined skin can involve heavy makeup and choosing fewer expressions as much as surgery.
If some guy - gay or straight - ripped on an actresses looks an acted like it wasn't a cheap shot, they'd get called on ot. So come on Stephanie, if you want to get TMZ in your movie review, drop the mask of thoughtful concern - it's more phoney than botox.
-
Excellent
[Read the article: WayLay]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's easy to forget how much skill it takes to produce a decent strip, but now that Salon has reminded us all with that other thing, I take back any previous kevetching about Lay. Her drawings are a pleasure to read and her stories are consistently amusing.