Letters to the Editor
softdog
Published Letters: 271 Editor's Choice: 12
-
The trolling headline isn't even in the article
[Read the article: All together now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Obama and Clinton's choreographed love fest in Unity, N.H., went off without a glitch. But are Democrats singing the same tune?"
This question doesn't really refer to the article. Shapiro shoehorns disunity into one paragraph, yet this is a very plain article with a deliberately provocative subhead to stoke the letters.
I had a polite exchange with Joan in her Salon blog about this and she refused to admit Salon's tone and choice of articles has anything to do with the toxic environment people perceive. I dispute this, whether one calls it outrage mining or provoking discussion Salon's pushing buttons and at this point they can no longer play innocent about the response.
It's really disappointing, as there are some good writers on this site, but those nattering on about the "Democratic Division" ain't them.
-
The Headline Editor Sucks
[Read the article: A murdered wife who isn't dead]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I like good movie reviews and I know it's often impossible to write one without revealing the plot. So I don't read reviews of thrillers I plan to see - unless there's a strong chance they may suck.
So it infuriates me that whoever wrote the headline for O'Hehir's piece chose to reveal a key plot point of a highly acclaimed thriller in the headline.
A large number of people have not seen this film or even a trailer, and this blows part of the thrill. If the point is to spread the word about little known cinema, this is not the way to do it.
-
It's not some - it's one - and other FoxNews talk from Joan
[Read the article: Slamming Wesley Clark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Once again we get passive/agressive outrage mining bull from Joan Walsh.
One blog is not "some Obama supporters" as the headline dishonestly claims. It's represents nothing but that voice. If your going to say some, you'd better back it up.
You are engaging in the sort of dishonest exaggeration which marks Fox News. Including the right wing / Republican distortion of holding Obama responsible for comments made by people with no connection to him: "If Obama wants to shut down a supporter who is truly doing him harm..."
Um, right. As if the campaign has magic control over random bloggers. They'd get roasted by many if they even tried.
Many of us have never even heard of this blogger before you brought him up. I notice he was an unhinged Hilary basher, so your personal petty grudge is pretty transparent.
Shoehorning this aside into your post also seems like a bit of water carrying for McCain. He still has it easier in the press on his equivocations and flat out lies while Obama is justly criticized for his shifts.
Honestly Joan, don't you feel the least bit of shame repeating the same media tricks which Glenn Greenwald regularly critiques?
-
Another way Joan carries water.
[Read the article: Slamming Wesley Clark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Also, it seems Joan only mentions this scandal at all in order to make Obama look thrice bad.
First, by bringing up Wes Clark's comment which seems like a cheap shot even as she defends it, thus tarnishing Obama through an unwise "surrogate".
Second, to slam Obama for backing away from a difficult cheap shot.
Third, to tarnish Obama with an over-the-top blogger who has nothing to do with the campaign.
I'm sure if Wes Clark had expressed some more diplomatic criticism, we'd be reading about some other Obama "misstep".
-
Have summer blockbusters lost all power to create third acts?
[Read the article: "Hancock"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It sounds like Hancock suffers from the same thing which soured Will Smith's previous film "I Am Legend" - abandoning the ideas and characterizations which made the movie interesting in the third act.
I like action films, plus I take it as a given there are only so many story patterns in the world. So it's not the hollywood formula which bugs me so much as to how they refuse to tinker with the restrictive third act climax at all. They may have a set up which is rich in characterization and stylized presentation, but then the climax is just another CGI heavy blowout.
This is why people go ape over the Bourne movies - they seem like a wild variation with just a little restraint and having a climax where the impact involves a small bit of emotional impact and more artful dosage of pyrotechnics.
From Nightwatch to Run Lola Run to any number of French popcorn flicks - it's clear something can be dumb and flashy yet not insultingly stupid and predictable.
One way is to pick one narrative approach and stick with it all the way to the end. Certainly Will Smith has the acting chops to pull off a real jerk who gets real redemption.