Letters to the Editor
softdog
Published Letters: 186 Editor's Choice: 8
-
Chris Rock jokes do not a substantial essay make
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton, the first Latina in chief?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Hillary Clinton, the first Latina in chief?"
Short answer: NO.
She's a privileged white lady who, as the author correctly observed before trying to deny it, "detected tension in the brown-black relationship and exploited it".
She's also running a campaign which has used people of color to do her dirty race baiting work, as with Reverend Wright, and it looks like Joan Walsh is doing the same thing.
Just because some Hispanic Clinton supporter writes an essay doesn't make it true - especially as he doesn't present any facts, statistics or substantiated sources for his assertion. He doesn't even link to studies or polls showing more Hispanics have voted for Clinton, let alone polls provide transparencey on their sampling of minorities - which is a big issue with increasing evidence of inaccuracies.
That whole "Bill is the first Black President" stuff? It was a joke which some try to present seriously. More importantly Toni Morrison didn't say it first, she was quoting a Chris Rock stand up routine. Clinton supporters like to lie about this little detail because it reveals the assertion for the farce it really is. That this essayist repeats this deception reveals the emptiness of his argument.
For a real idea of the Clinton's on race, how about we examine Bill's treatment of Jesse Jackson and Sister Souljah? That is the Clinton's who persist to this day, race baiting and arrogantly appropriating status.
The only time minorities need to anoint someone an "honorary" anything is when there is no hope of a real representative. Well guess what? There is a real minority this time and Clinton supporters ought to stop with the divisive racist propoganda.
-
How is a blog a substitute for an ombudsman?
[Read the article: Journalism's last line of defense]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't think a blog, or reader comments, is interchangable with an ombudsman. One is just a place for readers to make comments with no assurance, and often no hope, of an actual response. The other is a person with the power to make inquiries and replies and occasionally take action.
I'd argue blogs and comments can be used to prevent reader feedback, creating the illusion of interactivity when in reality it's just directing them to a side room to talk amongst themselves. The paper is free to ignore them entirely as valid complaints can be hidden in the general noise of any comment thread.
When someone has to make the effort of calling or writing and someone has to make the effort of listening or reading, actual information might be exchanged.
I also dispute the idea ombudsmen our outdated. It seems to me a reader advocate is highly current, the next logical step up in interactivity. If people are going to be invited to interact, shouldn't there be a person assigned to making use of that interactivity?
Lord knows, Salon could use an ombudsman - allowing blog responses by writers and editors who have ego invested in their decisions is not enough. They need someone who stands slightly apart and can assess common complaints like the Salon's rumored bias for Hillary or the rationale behind that Kansas comic.
It's amazing what a coherent "official" response does for reader satisfaction, even if they don't agree with it. Just look at Glenn Greenwald - who has a distinct following from the rest of the site. His strong reputation is in part because he does take the time to read the comments and address concerns.
So yes, ombudsmen is the most modern of devices - too bad most papers can be bothered to update.
-
Don't worry, I'm sure the jinx will happen
[Read the article: Of Valentine's jinxes and packaged gnocchi ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Maybe, just maybe, if you've really spent every Valentine's Day alone, it has something to do with whatever drives you to share such intimate information with the world as a way of making a living. Maybe if you could keep something so allegedly important in your live for yourself, instead of packaging it for consumption for the world for a buck, simultaneously ignoring boundaries and being loudly self-involved, then you could concentrate enough to make pasta and connect with other people.
As it is, I think you may have cursed whatever you have by transforming it into another trite Salon moment. And in a way, this pleases me.
-
You Might As Well Have Titled Your Post "Big Dumb Gender Fight".
[Read the article: V-day advice: Ladies, don't snoop in people's e-mail]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As a guy, Farhad, I'm asking you to stop being That Guy. The one who fulfills the stereotype of the tech geek who acts nice but deep down kinda hates women.
If you'd pry your eyes away from the Swimsuit Model site, you might act like a real tech geek and ask the hard questions about the validity of Google's poll.
How was it conducted? What was the the sample size and methodology? What were the questions asked.
Such things don't matter as you're seeking to stir the pot with minimal percentage differences, not noting 73% of both sexes aren't sneaking or peaking.
I think this counts as deliberate outrage mining.
-
Oh please.
[Read the article: Too great to be good]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is pure pandering and grandstanding. The only thing interesting is Zacharek is taking a cheap shots at at a male star for once. Too bad she can't accuse him of plastic surgery.
Also:
I recently received an e-mail letter from a professional actor who was dismayed both by Day-Lewis' performance and by audiences' response to it: "Weird how so many people confuse 'acting that you can see' with great acting," he wrote -- as concise and honest a summation of the way we want to be impressed by craft as I've ever read.
Ooooh! A professional actor? Why that makes all the difference. I take he does acting you can't see - does that mean subtle, not particulary interesting or just unlikely to be cast?