Unless you are really interested, i won't go into my best guess (theory) as to what accounts for the way Joan is covering this primary, but I think it is being shaped by a combination of many factors- one of which could be that she personally hopes Hillary wins, but i can make sense of her coverage without that being the case.

It sounds like you are clear in your opinion of Joan's functional and moral worth, so I'm sure neither of us want to argue about that. I like and respect her but find her coverage of this primary to be very frustrating so far.

Is that youtube Indiana thing where Bill Clinton's staffer says Indiana people are "shit" back in 92? Or is there something new that just happened on Hillary's staff? I had to quickly watch something this morning, but i'm not sure i watched the right thing...

Hi,

I can’t prove anything and, believe me, I’m not surprised by anybody who concludes Joan is actually pushing for Hillary. I happen to think her approach is a result of other things, but she definitely sets herself up for that criticism. I wouldn’t be surprised if Joan someday told us she was, indeed, hoping that Hillary won.

In a way it is a moot point because I agree with you that her coverage can be interpreted as biased and I think it is functioning in that manner, mostly.

The reasons I don’t think she is pushing for Hillary are also speculative. In no order of importance:

#1. If you go back through her blogs and really look specifically at the kind of praise she gives Barack and the kind of praise she gives Hillary, I think I can make an argument that it’s easy to see that on substance Joan is more impressed by Barack.

#2. Even though the media has been reporting this race as if it could go either way, we have all known for some time that Barack has mostly likely won it. Based on the rules of the primary and the reality of how it is influenced, we know Barack mostly likely had this in the bag over a month ago. Joan isn’t confused by those sorts of facts and- because of them- she considers him the frontrunner. I think Joan considers it her duty to put more pressure on the leader, and I think she has a quote to that effect.

#3. I think as editor of Salon Joan feels a distinct pressure to make sure Salon does not appear to be in the Obama Trance. I think this particular issue is important to her. But just my guess.

Even if each point I’m making is correct, I am not saying it justifies the way she is covering this primary. In my opinion she could achieve her goals of being tougher on the leader and avoiding the perception of Obama Trance without employing the strategy of focusing on mainstream content with mainstream assumptions.

I understand. I meant "functional" to mean that even if Ms. Walsh is not biased her writing is having the same function (effect) as biased approach; that's why I can imagine a critique of her writing to be both on moral and function levels...

Mine is only functional.

As you can see, IF I am correct about the kinds of things influencing Joan it would not mean she doesn't have access to the information and it would not necessarily mean she is stupid; I don't think she is stupid, although I'd like to hear her reason through the rational of her approach. i think her best argument is related to the avoidance of Obama Trance accusations, although I can imagine high quality coverage that strategically achieves the same ends without her (unfair) comparison approach.

Oh, how refreshing. We are having a disagreement with no implication that one of us is trying to ruin the world!!!!!

Ok, I have to run but I wanted to say I appreciated your points. Now I wish more than ever that someday we could really hear from Joan herself and hear the truth. But, boy, I had no idea that people were saying that Joan has talked about supporting Hillary in the non-Salon world. Anything strong on that?

I want to quickly say: I don't think Joan is working hard to conceal her favoring of Barack. I don't think it is difficult because she isn't making herself talk about specific policy type issues. Now, if that is what she was doing, I do think she would have to struggle to hide her support for Barack. But by only talking about the issue of perception, Joan makes it easy to focus exclusively on his "weaknesses". But go back and look at the few times she really talks about substance. She isn't just excited about the way he talks and inspires. Back around the time Joan blogged about how in 2004 Obama changed her view on Politics, she had a few interesting comments that I think shed light. Obviously, she could have changed her mind. But at this point, I don't see her complimenting Hillary in the same way she compliments Barack. Try to find it. She has sympathized with Hillary on the gender thing...but.....that's about it, really. Gotta run!