Letters to the Editor
softdog
Published Letters: 186 Editor's Choice: 8
-
Isn't Salon supposed to be alternative journalism?
[Read the article: Does Oscar hate his own smell?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We get the predictable and not-quite-kidding xenophobic schtick about furriners, plus another whack at Daniel Day-Lewis. Yes, we get it Salon, you decided Day-Lewis was undeserving and you're sticking to it (as Cintra and Stephanie are pals).
The only thing more endless than the montages is Wilson's whining about it.
Clearly she had little to say but was obligated to fill two pages. It seems like she cut and paste the paragraphs praising Michael Clayton from a different essay.
Perhaps Salon should have given her more time to write the piece. This seems like a collection of first draft ideas.
-
Salon's Truthiness and Fact Free Opinion
[Read the article: The dude vote]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Looking at real data and the split in the popular vote, it is only possible if plenty of men were voting for Clinton and women for Obama. This idea of gender based voting is more debate than reality.
In the internet age, a deliberately provocative article which makes very broad accusations in a national media outlet should back them up with substantial information.
This article makes assertions with nothing but a handful of selective excerpts from a few statements. McClelland doesn't even offer a wide survey of quotes, let alone something involving data.
Edward can't even be bothered to cite polls, let alone provide links readers can tell if he's honest about their contents.
Of course, there's growing doubts about exit polling. Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.com wrote in the New York Times about how poll companies are withholding information about methodology. There's a question as to whether their samples accurately represent actual voters.
[see: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/opinion/07blumenthal.html]
American votes are private, even the more public caucuses do not list results by gender and race. It's impossible to say with total certainty who's voting for what. This leaves dishonest pundits free to project their own feelings into the void, and pick fights based largely on hunches.
It's a bullshit form of journalism, and Salon should be ashamed of participating in it. If Salon really was alternative journalism, they'd focus on policy, voting records and other hard issues. They'd deconstruct the evidence behind such generalized propoganda, not repeat it.
Instead Salon throws bloviation bombs. I, for one, am sick of it.
-
Salon proves Stupid gets response
[Read the article: The dude vote]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To restate my earlier assertion: Edward McClelland has written a dishonest, pretty much fact-free jermaid meant only to drive up readership.
If you look at voter turnout, sans any of the dubious exit polling, it's pretty clear the election wouldn't be so close were voters of all types not supportive of both candidates.
Because it is close (even now) and because polling has proved ever more unrelaible, guys like McClelland can stir the pot through truthiness and speculation.
This will produce a bunch of people sounding off in all sorts of ways which "prove" the thesis, as much as picking a fight with facile phrases proves anything.
Imagine if Salon had devoted this space to asking if it is actually possible to tell who is voting. They could investigate the methodology of the polling data and compare perceptions of certain states and groups vs. reality.
This could be presented with a catchy headline like "What's actually real".
But then Salon couldn't fill space with crap like this.
-
More Salon Dishonest Fluff: Obama isn't "Ashamed" of his Middle Name
[Read the article: Obama should be proud to be named Hussein]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here is another shallow think piece from Salon based on a dishonest thesis which is a veiled attack on Obama.
Going by your first and last name is the normal thing to do in America, yet this article implies Barack Obama isn't using his middle name out of shame or fear.
Using one's middle name is considered the exception, not the rule. People do so when to avoid confusion with similar names, or for dramatic effect.
The same is true of the media: the middle name is used when first and last are too common, or for dramatic effect and emphasis.
The cases of three names being the standard are in the media, unless the person in question is a presidential assassin or being eulogized.
Juan Cole offers no proof about why Obama has to follow different rules for the rest of us.
The real issue is the transparent agenda of media figures who place exceptional emphasis on his media name.
This includes Juan Cole, who leans right. This repeats bigoted smears under the pretense of rebutting them while adding the new attack of implying Obama is afraid of his own name.
I'm really suprised Salon continues to post this dreck considering Glenn Greenwald is dissecting such dishonest rhetoric on a daily basis.
In fact, this makes Salon worse than the mainstream, as it pretends to offer something more substantial while wallowing in cheap shots and punditry lacking in substance and research.
Who ever is at the editorial helm - Joan Walsh, I presume - is clearly allowing a personal agenda override judgement.
Today is the worst, however, with two separate pieces implying Obama is self-loathing and the sound of his voice means more than his words.
-
Equal opportunity Insipid
[Read the article: Hillary at twilight]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hillary made one of hundreds of campaign stops in a town with a poetic name. Ooo, does this mean something?
No. No it doesn't. It means less than nothing, except that the author is an ass.
I'd say it's nice to see Salon balance out yesterday's Obama bloviation with a shallow undermining essay about Clinton, but two wrongs don't make a right.
When people express frustration with these insubstantial articles which take potshots on the most thin, absurd pretexts possible.
If the primary remains undecided until the Pennsylvania vote, will we be seeing an article which says "Hillary stopped in a town called Intercourse. Does this mean she's fucked?"
-
Addendum
[Read the article: Hillary at twilight]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I left out part of a paragraph:
"When people express frustration with these insubstantial articles which take potshots on the most thin, absurd pretexts possible, it doesn't mean they want pathetically shallow essays on both candidates. I means they want an examination of actual issues."