Letters to the Editor
softdog
Published Letters: 186 Editor's Choice: 8
-
I second debaser
[Read the article: Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Not to overpost, but this comment bears repeating, and I hope a few people read it before getting sucked into this hatefest even more:
Can you explain to me exactly how articles like these are supposed to mend the rift amongst democratic voters? Remind me again why it is helpful to pour gasoline on the fire?
You do realize that you have journalistic responsibility, don't you Joan?
Until now I always thought those who called you out were being silly...but now I'm starting to see their point.
This article is serves no purpose but to further the divide between both camps, and you know it.
-debaser
-
Rebecca - Your Dishonesty Verges on the Rovian
[Read the article: Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In your response to the fury generated by your article you dodge any responsibility for your intentionally sensationalistic language, saying "At no point do I claim that voting for Obama means you're sexist."
Perhaps you didn't use those words, but you compared male Obama voters with sinister violent sexist cultists. Here's a sample:
"there is something dark and funky, and probably not so female-friendly, running below the frantic fanaticism of their Obama-loving compatriots."
"man who made a series of legitimate complaints about Clinton's policies before adding that when he hears the senator's voice, he's overcome by an urge to punch her in the face"
"young men get glassy eyes and start spitting out vague things about how Barack Obama is going to save humanity. Really, have you seen their eyes? It's this faraway look. It's scary."
Rebecca, how is that NOT implying these men are something ugly and deranged?
Then you have to admit: "7. Everyone who notes that this piece is anectdotal is absolutely correct, and that criticism is totally fair and on-target."
Rebecca, this article begins with a third person tone of journalistic authority, implying your assertion had the weight of some type of concrete reporting.
Now you admit it's personal impressions and a self serving selection of quotes and stories, fitting the facts around the conclusion.
I don't mind opinions or personal impressions when they're presented as such, but that's not what you did.
You made a sensationalistic assertion about a major ugly trend which is in reality mostly speculation and conjecture with little reporting done which might question the thesis.
How is this any better than the closed minded behavior of the men you claim to describe? It's as as much a bad faith argument as "Liberal Fascism". Just like Jonah Goldberg, when someone calls you on your truthiness you dodge responsiblity for your actions and make excuses.
-
Salon - wallowing in the pigpile
[Read the article: The rubes and the elites]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The only coverage of the torture issue in Salon is a war room blog entry.
Which you chose NOT to make the top story, thus furthering the minimal media coverage.
In the old days this story would get a multi-article coverage and top billing.
But no, it's yet another opportunity for flamewar between candidate supporters.
AND IN ALL OF THESE ARTICLES THEIR ACTUAL POLICIES AND PLANS ARE NEVER MENTIONED.
You guys are no better than the shallow media pigpile Glenn Greenwald skewers.
Can we have even a one day break from this?
-
Well if computer access equals comfy then...
[Read the article: The rubes and the elites]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"So, let me ask you--you comfy kids in front of the monitor with your 401Ks and you no-copay med-plans--what would you cling to if just about every damn thing has been taken from you?"
Judging by this sentence, the answer seems to be, "cling to the wrongheaded assumption that everyone online is a memember of a group I resent, except for my superior self." Even though these days internet access does not equal comfortably wealthy by a long shot.
I like Obama, but this generalized myopia is the reason his comment misfired.
He correctly identified a cause for resentment, but was inaccurate about the scope and effects of the resentment.
A wide range of Americans feel under economic threat, not just the working class, which leads them to all sorts of resentful assumptions and generalizations. It's a combination of feeling put upon and superior.
Some resentment has concrete justfications (like anyone who has been foreclosed upon), some is exaggerated, but all is directed at other groups who seem to have it better or have it the same without as much effort.
This leads to such absurdities as suburban wage earners seething at urban elite hipsters who work in coffee shops and vice versa. Even though the hispter is often uninsured, carrying a similar debt load and working for crap pay. They may come from different backgrounds, but when it comes to the bottom line, both are equally vulnerable in a recession and occupy an equally narrow social circle. This "you have no right to speak on x" is not only unhelpful, but untrue.