TheSunGod writes:

When are the Palestinians going to get their fair shake in Salon?

and also

I just would like more coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here in Salon to show awareness of the concerns of both sides.

Juan Cole, who is extemely vocal with regard to his views of the rights of Palestinians, has had opinions published here on more than one ocassion. Gary Kamiya is, at the very least, even-handed (and in the opinions of some, tilts heavily towards the Palestinian side of debates). I have read many of Aluf Benn's columns and while yes, he is a columnist for Ha'aretz, I think you would be hard-pressed to define his stance as anti-Palestinian. (How many Israeli reporters call the killing of a Hamas leader "assassination?")

I think you will find that there are easily as many people who read Salon who find it too pro-Palestinian as too pro-Israeli. It is an interesting feature (to me) of a lot of folks on the political left in the United States that they tend to find the Palestinian perspective more persuasive than the the Israeli one.

Incidentally, I have read very carefully through the letters, and I don't see anyone accusing you of hating Israel or being anti-Semitic; it seems clear to me that Mr. Rifkin was speaking of Hamas in general and Mr. Mashaal in particular. I would admit that Mr. Rifkin isn't being all that polite with you, but I don't see any accusations of anti-Semitism.

Just my opinions, obviously.

See, this is a perfect example of why Broadsheet is a Bad Idea. Why is this article in Broadsheet? Because Helen Thomas is a woman? Don't you think that other folks would be more than happy to read about Scott McClellan getting smacked upside the head? I sure would, but I almost missed it because it has been relegated to the pink ghetto, among articles on "France knights Uma Thurman for being hot," "British Drag Queens, Circa 1955," and "Is your plumber Mr. Right?"

It is sad that I am missing so many other articles that would almost certainly interest me simply because you folks feel that they have to be embedded in a stream of other stories like the one on Dita Von Teese. And I would have been sad to have missed Helen Thomas giving it to McClellan on Crooks and Liars.

Sigh.

Marianna,

What I object to is, why was this story in a "woman's" section? Why isn't it on the main page, or in War Room? Why doesn't someone on Salon do another full story on the supine press corps and how they finally had a few sparks one day? Or mention that, after Helen Thomas upbraided him, Scott McClellan immediately went to one of his "out" reporters--the reporter from India, who can always be counted on to ask a question that is innocuous from a domestic political standpoint--now that "Jeff Gannon" is gone?

The point here is, why are these stories relegated to a side blog "for women," when a lot of them apply to everyone, or could be of interest to more than "just women?" How are these stories chosen? Why on earth (for example) was the story about Rosa Parks in Broadsheet? Didn't she have impact way beyond "just" women? Why was *this* story in Broadsheet? Just because Helen Thomas is a woman? That seems completely absurd to me.

So yes, I object strenuously to ploughing through a lot of fluff in the "women's" section on the off chance that there's a story like this there. And I also object to "women's stories" (whatever the hell *they* are!) being shunted off to the side.

Hopefully that makes a little more sense.

Marianna,

At the risk of appearing pedantic, let me repeat myself: what I object to is the fact that a story about a member of the White House press corps taking Scott McClellan to task was shunted off into a side pocket of Salon for the sole reason that the reporter in question is a woman. That's absurd. And honestly, if someone told Helen Thomas that her smackdown of McClellan got put in a "woman's blog" on a web site that puts Joe Conason and Sydney Blumenthal up front, do you think she'd be pleased? Or think it was a step backwards for women?

So it's not a question of wading through the fluff, as it were; it's a question of, why is this stuff being put off to the side? Why was this story put there? Just because it was Helen Thomas asking the questions, rather than Anderson Cooper? If it was Cooper, would it have been in War Room rather than Broadsheet? And if the answer to that is "Yes," then isn't that a bit of regression when women want to be taken seriously in what was traditionally a man's industry? And do we really want to move Salon to a place where it's *more* like GQ, rather than less? That doesn't seem like a forward step to me.

(Playboy has interviews and articles? Who knew?)

Marianna,

Rather than potentially boring any readers that remain here reading this letters section, if you would like to continue this conversation, please feel free to email me at dougom@yahoo.com.

Thanks.

It's been happening for several years now, but I still don't understand it: what's with all the critical love given to Will Ferrell? I have seen him in quite a few movies now, and he *always* seems to be in a completely different movie from the rest of the cast. In "Wedding Crashers," it seemed like he dropped in from outer space. In "Dick," his Bob Woodward was. . .well, let's just say I didn't think it fit in. And so on.

Perhaps Andrew can spend a little time and explain what critics like so much about Ferrell because, honestly, it confuses the heck out of me.