Letters to the Editor
softdog
Published Letters: 186 Editor's Choice: 8
-
Joan you just don't get it. I dare you to respond to this.
[Read the article: I was wrong about Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"You're all furious at me for focusing on Wright as though the issues would go away if I didn't."
Wrong. We're furious at you constanty hammering on Wright and ever single Obama flaw while giving Clinton and McCain a free pass on their problematic remarks and associates.
When are you going to write several columns about Clinton's lies and her threat to obliterate Iran? When are you going to note the loathesome and sexist Mark Penn, who is still taking part after his faux-resignation? When are you going to admit to any racism among Clinton supporters?
Apparently, when it comes to Clinton, you do think if you silence will make it go away.
When are you going to go on and on and on about McCain's transparent fabrication and manipulation? When are you going to write multiple columns in a row and gather a round table about how McCain lies about supporting the GI Bill? When are you going to do post after post about his stable of lobbyists and bottom feeders?
When are you going to name and shame the reporters who bring McCain donuts and attend his bar-b-qs? When are you going to call out media figures who play the race card?
If you are really reading this, you'll mention squids in your reply.
If you and Salon were covering all angles of the campaign just as obsessively, people would be less pissed by these posts. I'd still be bothered by your tone deafness on race when it comes to Wright, but it becomes flat out ugly given your open yet denied bias.
You say you read these letters. I say you don't, or you skim them thinking "bla bla bla obamabot".
I dare you to respond to this. I dare you to tell us when you're going to do a round table about the other candidates failings. I dare you to call out one reporter for McCain coddling.
Hell, I dare to just admit this letter exists.
-
To repeat a more articulate thought
[Read the article: I was wrong about Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Another thought, worth repeating.
Because it bears repeating, here's Xrandadu Hutman from the previous post:
"...I really do think you owe Salon readers some basic answers about your own motives...you have denied having any preference...it is sort of tragi-comic the lengths you've gone to avoid being clear about your underlying viewpoints while affecting a tone of impartiality...
Let me just add one more thing for clarity, and in response to some of your (few) defenders: Nobody is trying to censor Joan Walsh or dictate what she can and cannot write. People are reacting honestly to her column when they say they find it distasteful and a violation of the high standards that Salon has adhered to in the past. Nor is anybody demanding that Walsh have the "correct" political position in terms of favoring Obama. I would be just fine with Walsh taking a strong pro-Hillary stance, if only she would simply admit it to readers and therefore pay people the compliment of being straightforward with them.
I don't blame you for being down on the various less-restrained, tactless Obama supporters who have been insulting (especially with sexist-type insults). I am down on them too, and I try not to be insulting to you, even though admittedly some of your rhetorical approaches make me angry...Salon readers, like me, expect you to simply apply even standards and to disclose your biases when you're writing on a subject."
I would also add: Joan I don't know how much control you have over Salon in general, but Salon is now marked by what things it no longer notices. Some of it is mentioned in passing, but never featured and rarely investigated in full.
Remember when Salon played a role in focussing attention on the treatment of injured vets? Remember when it had wide ranging cultural snark, instead of confined to one columnist on the weekends?
Remember when Salon had a cohesive image of quality, instead of being an annoying center with some decent writers who appear to be working on their own at the edges?
Manjoo's excellent critique of the post-fact world exists almost entirely within his own blog, with little interaction with the rest of Salon. I would love to see him engage you and your editorial choices - even if he decided you were just fine.
Honestly Joan, Salon has become a thing where a few parts are more than the sum of the whole. It's really sad. And the next Camille Paglia column will just be cap on the pathos.