Letters to the Editor
softdog
Published Letters: 186 Editor's Choice: 8
-
A step up and A step down again.
[Read the article: Attention, pundits. It ain't over]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Nice to see this article is at the top now, but why is it the pessimistic article about the Democrats has the image of Obama being compared to other losers, and this positive one has an image of Clinton smiling? Even when the journalism isn't trash, Salon's presentation is still shamefully biased. Someone on the editorial side needs to back off.
The article shows it's possible to favor Clinton without demonizing Obama or sacrificing all rhetorical integrity. Traister has made up a bit for her last bogus essay. As AJCalhoun points out:
I actually found a Traister article to be pretty straightforward. It's already abundantly clear who she favors in the race, and she's got a right to that for god's sake. But for once it wasn't a bunch of thinly-veiled Obama-bashing. The quotes from the volk she heard speaking at rallies there were not something Ms. Rebecca would normally include in her writings...I think it was a really nice piece of work, and I rarely say anything kind about Traiseter's work, but this one made me feel good -- while still laboring under the delusion that the candidate who is ahead is likely to win.
Meanwhile, the comments continue to wallow in the pit dug by Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich.
AnaHadWolves says; "Give us a break, please; we Hillary supporters aren't the enemy." In a general sense no, but it doesn't help when your rhetoric involves demonizing Obama and his supporters. That's not treating your opponent like an ally Ana, that's just as vengeful and mean-spirited as Obama extremists.
This scolding applies to extremes on both sides. It is possible to criticize a candidate on your side without dismissing everything about them and calling their supporters fools. If you really want to be seen as allies, then you should should be able to uplift your candidate without completely trashing the other. And if they trash talk, you rise above it.
The only opponents who require complete contempt and denunciation are Republicans. They are the ones who elected the unitary torture president, not the Democrats.
Also, as cubster points out:
I have read and heard comments that as long as the candidates are attacking each other they cannot attack McCain. Why not. There is nothing that stops either campaign from pointing out the weaknesses of the Republican candidate while they are closing the primary season. I actually think it would make that candidate seem like they feel they are the democratic candidate.
-
The ever growing gap between Greenwald and Joan Walsh.
[Read the article: Media's refusal to address the NYT's "military analyst" story continues]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is the height of irony that Salon, which has been obsessed with Democratic primary infighting, links to this post with a front page headline of "Why is media ignoring military propaganda exposé?"
Gee, perhaps for the same reason Salon has ignored the torture approval scandal and the food riots? Because all they care about is a narrow concept of outrage mining, and leave everything else to their few prestige affiliates.
At this point, Greenwald's presence does not redeem Salon because he's not editorial staff, just a blog the site is underwriting. One which could probably survive easily without its support. Meanwhile Salon itself seems to be in flight from the values it once espoused.
-
Let's Dump The "Salon" Name
[Read the article: Let's dump "Earth Day"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Kudos to whomever posted the Mr. Burns quote - it is the best summation of this dreck.
Didn't Salon present a similar knee-jerk "enviornmentalism is wrong, let's be selfish" several months back?
That one had a headline which referenced cry-babies and a graphic with a weepy cartoon tree-hugger.
I think Joan Walsh has some sort of issue with earnest green types. Or, given the bean-buying as cultural slumming essay of last week, she thinks this is what the people want.
I think it's time Salon dumped it's name. Salon implies some sort of informed thoughtful wide ranging conversation. This site specializes in outrage mining and knee-jerk contrarianism (like the odious Camille Paglia). Perhaps it should be called "Troll" or maybe "Navel".
-
Joan Walsh is improving but not by much.
[Read the article: What Pennsylvania tells us]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While Joan seems to have regained some rationality to her editorializing, which makes her preference for Clinton far less annoying, I strongly disagree with this:
I loved Andrew O'Hehir's piece Monday. I think he made a huge contribution to our long-term understanding of this race, just as Sean Wilentz, Brad DeLong and Michael Lind all did. He made me think about what's at stake this year a little differently.
What you call thinking, I call inciting and pandering. I don't find it helpful.
But now that Walsh has taken a step back, can the bile in the comments do so as well?
-
By annoying I don't mean she can't like Clinton
[Read the article: What Pennsylvania tells us]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I should clarify - it's find for Walsh to favor Clinton. It was the pretense of objectivity used to make cheap shots which bugged me.
Walsh appears to have realized a Democratic win is the top priority. Excellent. Now bring it on home by naming and shaming more of the McCain toadies in the media.
-
Uncle as well
[Read the article: Obama can't close the deal ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can't stand it, honestly. I give up.
The election was the top story, but there are many ways to present it beyond stirring the pot so forcefully and trolling the readership. Ways which would still be interesting without being inuriating.
As someone else points out, it's not bias as much as lazy sensationalism.
There was a glimmer of hope in a few even-handed words by Walsh, but I now see she has no intention of reversing the cumulative effect of Salon's lax ugly, obsessive coverage.
I'm sure the two sides will be spew invective here to another 100 plus comment count.
So enough with the quixotic pleas for better coverage. Maybe things will improve post primary.
-
Excellent
[Read the article: Bateman: Under Hillary's nuclear umbrella (ella ella)]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Funny and apt dissection of a single scary comment, without sexism or "she can't win" thrown in. I like it.
-
How will Salon flop today?
[Read the article: Will the Democrats flop in Denver?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Argh!
It's like Salon found it a challenge to find a way to goad us who vowed to give up into ranting again.
Stop it. Really. Cut it out.
"Democratic Voters: Will They Spontaneously Combust or Just Become Crazed Killing Machines Which Must Be Wiped From The Earth?"
Salon has gone beyond self-parody into a form of stupidity which is almost the perfect opposite of Zen.