Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Felicity
Published Letters: 23 Editor's Choice: 5
This letter is more of a response to other people's letters rather than the article itself. I've noticed recently that whenever Ayelet Waldman or Rebecca Traister publish articles, their articles incite a flurry of letters to the editor. Many of these letters often talk about how irrelevant much of what these writers say is, and how Salon shoudn't bother publishing such ridiculous/irrelevant material.
And yet, these writers seem to garner more letters to the editor than others. Topics such as parenting, gender, sexuality, etc. seem to be getting people talking more. People write in and say "But what about Iraq? The administration? Salon should be concentrating on these issues." But honestly, those articles don't gather the same kind of action. Obviously, Salon is going to publish pieces that get more reaction, whether its negative or positive.
I really feel like if you honestly felt like much of what these articles said were so irrelevant or ridiculous, you wouldn't be writing in. I agree with other letter writers, I think these topics must be striking a nerve to be creating such a huge amount of activity on these message boards. If you really feel like these topics are so ridiculous and crazy, you wouldn't bother reading them are writing in. The huge amount of activity tells me that people such as Traister, Dowd, and Waldman must be touching on something that is speaking to people. I don't agree all the time with everything they say, and sometimes I may disagree with a lot of what they say. But I think the articles are still meaningful nonetheless. Marriage, family, and relationships between the sexes are fundamental to how we lead our lives, and these things are changing rapidly in our society. These writers are addressing such issues, and that's going to be uncomfortable for a lot of people. And so, when they say things that strike a nerve, everybody and their mother writes in with their opinion.
I'll believe you all that you think these writers are so irrelevant when their articles fail to inspire letters to the editor.
I found this article very interesting since I lived in China for over a year, and travelled all over the country. I think companies like Google and Yahoo are in a very difficult position. I do agree that assisting the government track down dissidents is totally inappropriate. However, I think I lean toward the side that it is better that the Chinese have some access to these powerful search engines than none at all. China is opening up so quickly, and I feel that overall Internet access is creating more freedom for the Chinese rather than less. Also, Chinese people are very cynical about their government. They all know that the government censors news, so they are prepared to take news with a grain of salt. I read Yahoo news while I was over there plenty of times, and overall, it was very similar to what you see in Yahoo news here.
I also wanted to point out that the Interent censorship there is not as total as one may think. It is very difficult to censor every single thing you may not like on the Internet. I actually read the New York Times online every day from public Internet bars in China because you have to login using a password. You can create a New York Times login as long as you have a U.S. zipcode, which some Chinese people used. Also, it was while living in China that I was first introducted to Salon.com. I read Salon nearly every day in public Internet bars there.
In addition, the rampant piracy of CDs and DVDs in China actually allows in a great deal of information the Chinese wouldn't have otherwise. Piracy actually assists the country in bringing in new ideas since the pirated CDs and DVDs are sold outside the law.
Interestingly enough, I bought a book about how the Communists oppressed the Tibetans in a state-owned bookstore while living there. I was shocked that they had allowed it. Frankly, what they decided to censor and what they didn't often made no sense. I never could access the Washington Post online, but the Washington Times was always availabe.
So, I guess what I'm saying is I wouldn't condemn these companies right away. I think they are in a difficult situation, and having a presence in China does assist the country in opening up. I hope that while walking the fine line between providing a service and assisting the government in censorship, they act with a conscience.
Hi Lynn,
That's a good point about language.
But as increasing numbers of Chinese are in fact fluent enough in English to read English-language news, this kind of news will spread. Despite the fact that the vast majority of people are unable to speak or read English, there are still millions of urban dwellers who can read English well enough to understand English language news sites, and they then share this information with their friends and family. This will increase since China is pushing its citizens to learn English. There are urban Chinese swapping U.S. zipcodes to access American news sites.
I suppose that Yahoo and Google could refuse to operate there, but does that really help anyone?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
