Letters to the Editor
softdog
Published Letters: 186 Editor's Choice: 8
-
No Matter Who Wins, Joan Has Fallen
[Read the article: Will Obama's debate stumble hurt him?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No matter who wins - and I'll support either one - Joan Walsh has fallen from grace.
The worst part is not her craven refusal to admit - or deal with - her own bias. Nor is it how this bias has slanted Salon's general coverage.
Nor is it Salon's penchant for articles aimed at stoking reader anger at both candidates. Nor how they pandering to rage and divison so much they might as well be working for Rove. Nor is it how Salon rarely presents any facts, let alone examine actual policies, stances and promises.
No, it is how Salon stomps through this sewer obsessviely on a daily basis while ignoring a huge number of other topics. Topics of vital importance, which we want to read and discuss.
Instead the one article which even gets near the global food crisis is a navel gazing article about a middle class person buying beans.
Salon is taking the most, shallow, lazy approach to its alleged mission, and doing this at the very same time it publishes a columnist who dissects every single vile editorial policy which Salon is wallowing in.
Shame on you Joan Walsh. And don't try to pretend you are only giving the audience what they want - as Glenn Grenwald points out, this is a cheap excuse.
-
Ken Pollack at the dinner table
[Read the article: Ken Pollack: Al Qaeda is a great "catch-all" term]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Pass me chicken."
"Actually it's roast beef, dear."
"Beef, chicken - it's all meat, isn't it?"
The right wing is descending into absurdity defending dishonestly. I'd like to see the oh so serious Ken Pollack justify using Catholic to refer to all Christians.
-
Joan: Just drop the subject - and stop doing brick wall videos.
[Read the article: Will Obama's debate stumble hurt him?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Perhaps I'm too forgiving, but if Joan Walsh just stopped writing about the Democratic primary entirely, she might regain credibility with me.
At this point, it's hard to tell if her awareness and skills are week in general, or if she just has a major blind spot on how badly she's handling this topic.
Hell, I'd trust her more if she just openly acknowledged her lack of objectivity. But to re-establish herself, I think she needs to ban primary talk from her blog entirely and from the features, leaving it to the bloggers who make an effort to vary topics and points of view.
Also, Salon needs to stop doing the brick wall videos. Most of your staff, no matter how camera ready they may seem, are far better writing words than presenting them. Even the most insightful text or voice only work can seem shallow when a face is added. Plus the current cheap production flatters no one. If Salon must do videos, find a more compelling visual context thn someone awkwardly reciting their work.
-
The one good thing about reading psycho support letters.
[Read the article: The haunting of the Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've accomplished one thing by reading these letters - it's convinced me once again both candidates are equally good despite their strengths and flaws. The furious rants also frequently reveal both types of prejudice, so I don't doubt either exists.
I've stopped wondering what's wrong with those who can't prefer candidate without violently loathing the other. As I wrote before, it's misplaced catharsis. All the rage, fear and toxic passion of GOP misrule is now coming out in a strange direction.
Perhaps Dems turn on each other due to apparent Republican indifference at least one's peers might listen. But it's a right wing narrative which exploits and amplifies the lefts internal divisions. The media plays along, placing far more emphasis on this than the GOP's rifts.
Now both candidates praised McCain while campaigning, which means even they are influenced by the free ride the media is giving him.
While I understand, I think its stupid. Being enthusiastic for one candidate is rational. Extreme, relentless demonization of the other is toxic.
Wallowing in such nasty rhetoric cannot be healthy for the mind. It's drinking the poison Rove poured for us.
Alas, making this point in a letter won't stem the tide one bit.
It might make a difference if Salon allowed such ideas in an article, but they're fixed upon stoking ugliness.
And please, do not agree with me and then say "but candidate X started it" or "but he/she is worse".
-
Taliesan
[Read the article: The haunting of the Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You miss my point and make it at the same time.
-
Why isn't this the featured aritcle?
[Read the article: Attention, pundits. It ain't over]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If Salon must obsess and speculate over the race, writing like this which counteracts the doom and gloom should get top billing.
I'm especially heartened by this portrayal of people who support Clinton:
Dave Eck said he was in line "to listen to Hillary and reinforce my thinking about her."...Eck said that he felt that "Obama has some decent things to say," but his wife, LeeAnne, was less charitable,..."I don't even know what his name is," said Lee Anne, laughing. "Bahama Mama? Osama?"
Eck's words were not received warmly by the people standing around her; one man firmly told her, "His name is Barack Obama." LeeAnne Eck looked somewhat abashed. "Fine. I'll learn it," she said. "But I just love Hillary. I love everything about her. And I heard that what's-his-name doesn't salute the American flag. I don't like that." At this, about half a dozen people in line chimed in to correct her misapprehensions about Obama's patriotism. "That's just not the case, and you shouldn't believe gossip about him being a Muslim, either," said a woman wearing two Hillary buttons. Charles Johns, 68, added, "And even if he were Muslim, that's no reason not to vote for him."
Most of the Clinton / Obama supporters in Salon comments could learn something from that exchange.