Sorry to disagree, but I found this article utterly repellent. I also found it all to similar to other Salon features that have based grand generalizations on nothing but weak personal anecdotes. As I understand it--from this article--Mr. Branfman met and spent a week with Mr. Koppel 35 years ago, subsequently had lunch with him at which he repeatedly insulted two of Mr. Koppel's friends, and then, after 30 years, was peeved because Mr. Koppel refused to devote a program to one of Mr. Branfman's pet projects. According to the article, that is the sum total of Mr. Branfman's relationship with Mr. Koppel. I know my dry cleaner better than that. And I wouldn't begin to feel qualified to write an article about Henry Huang (said dry cleaner), much less to piss on him in the national press.

The root of Mr. Branfman's dissatisfaction with Mr. Koppel appears to lie in personal disappointment: He wanted Mr. Koppel to share his political views and, most particularly, his belief that Mr. Kissinger was at very best one of Satan's outriders. How could Mr. Koppel, that "decent man" (and rarely has such a generally genuine accolade been used to confer such thin praise) consider Kissinger a friend? Well, clearly, the only answer is that Mr. Koppel had himself joined the dark side, even if only on the margins. The notion that Mr. Koppel might have personal reasons for regarding Mr. Kissinger as a friend--maybe Kissinger saved Koppel's drowning child, maybe he wrote a particularly moving letter of sympathy when Koppel's mother died, maybe he told the best dirty jokes inside the Beltway--is completely disregarded. In Mr. Branfman's world, apparently, you're either part of the solution or part of the problem, and that goes for every aspect of your personal life.

That kind of absolutist, "Anyone who disagrees with me is part of the axis of evil" thinking is exactly what I loathe most about today's right wing, and I loathe it even more when it comes from the left. When coupled with the self-absorption that regards scanty personal experience as a substitute for actual reporting and analysis, it is the death-knell of responsible journalism--fully as destructive as the kind of access-buying that Mr. Branfman (almost) correctly condemns, though without any credible back-up.

A word about that access-buying. Some journalists practice investigative journalism, which demands that the journalist function as an outsider to the people or situations that he/she is investigating. This can be both honorable and productive, but it exacts an enormous emotional toll, because--as with spies--the journalist must live much of his/her life as a lie. More importantly, it's not the only kind of journalism. There is an equally honorable, and equally productive branch that involves reporting without pretense, conducting interviews without pretending to befriend the person being interviewed. A fair amount of the time, you don't have to go through their garbage: They'll incriminate themselves, and right in front of your not-hidden TV cameras.

That's the kind of journalism that, at least on "Nightline," Mr. Koppel has always practiced, and one of the side-effects of this kind of work is that, from time to time, you find yourself liking the people you're interviewing. You may not agree with all their beliefs, you may be revolted by the fact that they don't always recycle their milk cartons, but you enjoy their company, and they enjoy yours. That's being human. Clearly, that kind of behavior isn't up to Mr. Branfman's high standards, but then, his form of "journalism" doesn't begin to meet mine.

This is hands-down the best article I have read on Salon in two years. All kinds of applause.

It doesn't really make sense to boycott a product -- a movie, a tourist attraction, a book, a particular brand of chocolate -- merely because it's being touted to a group (i.e., the Fundies) whom you despise. Is the theory that anything they like, or might conceivably like, is inherently garbage? What do you do about the fact that pretty much everybody likes ice cream?

Understand, I'm totally on board with despising the Fundies and believing that they have played an enormous role in destroying -- though not permanently, one hopes -- much of what is valuable about this country. But boycotting the film because the company that made it has the gall to think it might appeal to the Fundies as well as to other folks...this to me is nuts.

>Would it be unbearably sad for the family of the deceased if they encountered his or her face on another person in Barnes & Noble?

No, but it would be unbearably sad for the local independent booksellers -- or those who haven't yet been forced out of business by what we fondly refer to as the Evil Empire.

Support your local independent bookstore.

Harri, dear, a couple of things. First, there's nothing wrong with waxing snotty about another writer's abilities, but if your comments are to have any authority you had better be able to demonstrate some serious chops of your own. Sadly, you don't have them.

Second, I'm sure you imagine your handle to be the height of wit. Unfortunately, it is both yesterday's joke and wrongly spelled: If you really want to tweak those clueless rubes who don't kow the French for "green bean," you'll want to spell the surname "Covair," so their tiny little pois-brains can sound it out phonetically.

Not to worry, though, I'm sure your killingly elegant prose-style will protect you from ever getting fired. Absolutely. And listen, no foam on that latte, ok?