Letters to the Editor
Sandra M
Published Letters: 577 Editor's Choice: 139
-
What's with the dogpile on Cary?
[Read the article: My boyfriend wants an open relationship]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you don't like his advice, stop reading him. It's that simple.
Cary is in a no-win job. If he selects letters highlighting problems with which he has some experience - e.g. addiction, family issues, relationships - the salonazis jump on him for recommending therapy etc etc. If he gives long, winding, poetic answers he's accused of going off the rails. If he answers with brevity or pragmatism, eschewing the philosophical and poetical, another set of complainers jumps in to say he's being cavalier, not thoughtful etc.
Given all of this, I'd say he does a pretty good job holding the interest of a pretty diverse group of people.
As for today's letter: Cary's not a gay man in an open relationship, never has been (I presume) and likely never will be. His limited experience in this LW's mileiu means that his advice is, possibly, going to be perceived as limited. Even if he made the big stretch to compare the time he was dating girl x and then she got interested in boy y, or he got interested in boy z, there are clearly cultural (meaning, gay vs. hetero) issues he doesn't feel qualified to speak to. Given all of this he gave the best advice he could give. It was pretty straightforward. This doesn't mean he's 'off the rails', sitting under a bush somewhere out on Great Highway road slurping Wild Turkey and writing feverishly in a notebook. It might - just might - mean that he sees this is a straightforward problem with a fairly straightforward way of dealing with it.
The LW clearly didn't have any trouble bringing his problem to Cary despite this lack of uniformity in their lives/experiences/cultural influences. He conceivably understands he is not beholden to the advice. He just wanted some perspective - not only from Cary but, I suspect, from the vocal readership's Letters to the Editor.
Who can say if advice is bad? It's all a matter of opinion, and often not even informed opinion.
It's unbelievable to me that someone would actually write in and deign to give Cary a public performance review and recommend editorial oversight. That would be like Salon looking over your letters to the editor and saying well, gee, this person doesn't seem to be making cogent arguments or giving truly informed opinions anymore. Also, s/he doesn't agree with us. So- let's have a panel of folks on the staff look over her/his letters before they get published, you know, due to the decline in quality and agreement.
For all we know, the LW looked at Cary's reply and got just what he wanted. If he didn't, so what. He wrote in to an *advice columnist*, i.e. a professional writer -- not a professional therapist. He can always search out our Letters to the Editor to see if there is a response that rings his bell. It's his business. Lay off Cary.
-
Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings had face lifts
[Read the article: The personal is too personal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]All you have to do is look at them to know it for sure. And no one ever interviewed them about it, and neither ever felt compelled to talk about it when interviwed. I guess they just figure everyone knows why they did it and it's no big deal. On the other hand Katie Couric talked about whether she would (she hopes not) but how a woman's vanity is a very real thing and she hopes she know how she'll feel about aging in front of an audience.
Maybe if Katie didn't volunteer this kind of stuff, or respond to it, there wouldn't be so much interest in such inconsequential details vs. how she actually does her job. Just a thought.
-
Bayard is one to make fun...
[Read the article: Honey, I read "The Stranger"!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]His 'writing' isn't much more advanced than W's reading - probably less so.
-
Thoughts on Salon's Thought Leadership
[Read the article: What else we're reading]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I concur with Mother Jones - Salon doesn't realy qualify as thought leadership journalism. Too much of the content is skewed way liberal - though leadership isn't about rah-rahism, it includes open and vigorous debate on issues. There is a clear editorial Slant in Salon.
As for content - too much of it is just too fluffy. Please, no more Ayelet Waldman! Recently there were stories on Nora Ephron and Speedos - a lot of virtual space dedicated to virtually nothing. I am not averse to light entertainment, like the Kellior columns - but at least Kellior doesn't go on ad nauseum about the same old tired gendered subjects, and he has a poetic turn of phrase and some interesting philosophical observations embedded in his folksy northern-midwesterner tropes. Also, he's a damn good writer.
The Speedo story was like a competently written essay by a freshman in college - mildly entertaining but mostly notable for not being more so. I can do better. I don't pay Salon to read writing worse than my own. And the supposedly satiric skewering of Bush's reading of Camus - that was really lame, Salon. It was poorly written, the humor juvenile and embarassing. I am not a fan of President Bush but that was way over the top - nothing a thought leader on the blue or red side of the fence would find funny either. Irony and satire are great but like most sharp tools best left in the hands of expert users than hacking amateurs.
I'm not saying lighter pieces are bad by defintion - but in Salon's case they haven't been good in excution, which brings down the overall editorial tone of Salon.