Letters to the Editor
normankelley
Published Letters: 130 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Shaky Shapiro?
[Read the article: Shecky Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Man, this is absolutely the worst dreck I've read this pre-primary political season. So, you're on the road and obviously don't have anything meaningful to report, so Obama becomes some incarnation of Shecky Green? This is as trite and meaningless as the sort of blogger crap journalism that the Times passes off.
-
Not impressed
[Read the article: The Clinton vs. Obama slugfest continues]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Increasingly I've become less and less impressed with Joan Walsh's editorialship of Salon in this political cycle. Although I have yet to see her on the tube, I suspect that she is becoming just another blathering Talkin' Head spouting opinions as facts. Is is really interesting to contrast and compare Clinton and Bush?
The political reporting at Salon isn't as engaging or informative as that of 2004. I agree with another letter writer; the only people worth reading are Greenwald, whose parsing of the skullduggery of the Bush administration is second to none, and the work of Tim Grieve.
Some of the postings by Shapiro and Scherer are classic examples of junk journalism, such as the one about Obama doing a Shecky Greene standup routine, or today's brilliant "You Too Can Be a Campaign Reporter."
Greenwald wonders if Time Magazine is editing Joe Klein. Well, one wonders if Walsh is doing the same at Salon.
-
Whatever happened to real issues?
[Read the article: Integrity and slime, in old media and new]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Ms. Walsh:
I'm perplexed as to why you find trivia about an alleged Obama erection worthy of comment while Salon has written nothing about the FCC's cable industry shenanigans and how its chairman and the MSM are salivating at the prospect of repealing the FCC ruling that regulates ownership of media outlets (say, a newspaper and/or TV owned by one firm) in cities or media markets. I find this perplexing given that you, Salon, and some bloggers always complain about the old media. However, other than some AP posting, I've yet to read an article from Salon about the implications of such possible deregulations.
This is exactly the kind of original reporting that Eric Bohlert engaged as a Salon writer.
-
Lazy, Cynical and Irresponsible Journalism
[Read the article: The NYT's Michael Cooper demonstrates what real reporting is]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The following was sent to the Washington Post regarding its article on Obama and rumors. Let's see if it will see the light of day:
The Post’s “Foes Use Obama’s Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him” in the November 29th edition has to be one of the most irresponsible and cynical pieces of journalism ever. The “peg,” or angle, of the piece was to use the Internet’s spread of rumors against the senator as a means to justify the story’s use of scurrilous and unsubstantiated claptrap about his religious affiliation, particularly because his late father was a Muslim, and due to the fact that he had spent time in a Muslim nation, Indonesian.
This ugly rumor was first spread by Fox News—Obama attended a “madrassa”— and was investigated by CNN and found to be what it was then and is now: a smear. Yet the Post chose not even to call it was it really is, namely a smear and propaganda. Of course, hiding be hide the rubric of “objectivity.”
The jump page of the article, “”Aides Fighting Rumors About Obama’s Religious Beliefs,” made it seem as if the Obama campaign must bear the onus of proving him not to be a Muslim. Worse yet, Republican operatives were mentioned spreading the rumors, but the Post made no effort of balance by labeling what their agenda is: namely smearing a candidate by the use of propaganda on the Internet.
What makes this cynical is that the Post’s Perry Bacon didn’t even mentioned that this rumor has been checked and found false by another news outlet, CNN. Thus, the Post could then report on it as “news” when it had been found to be bogus, meaning not news at all.
Why not write a real article called “The genealogy of smear”? Or, how propaganda is spread? No, that would require real work, which is something that lazy journalists are incapable of.
Norman Kelley
-
Finally, something on Big Media consolidation
[Read the article: FCC commissioner Michael Copps vs. "Big Media"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Misinformation, misdirection, entertainment, banality, bathos, pathos, knee-jerk responses, cowardice..." wrote FilthyHarry regarding "Big Media."
If we follow his advice—do nothing and let it collapse on its own—then we'll certaintly get more of the same from the Internet: Misinformation, misdirection, entertainment, banality, bathos, pathos, knee-jerk responses, and cowardice.
The 'Net is being increasingly taken over by Big Media and their objective is the same in print, radio, TV and cable TV: profits via monopolization.
It is interesting to note that this article, rather an interview, may well be the first serious one by Salon in 2 years. And isn't Salon supposedly this kind of trail-blazing website that supposedly does the kind of reporting that Big Media doesn't touch?
Yet, we get Joan Walsh on Big Media talking about issues other than the consolidation of the media. And you certainly aren't going to hear about this as a major issue in the presidential debate—or in Election 2008.
Will NPR bring this up tomorrow at the latest Democratic Party "debates"?
It only came up recently at one because an Iowan woman mentioned it and Clinton kind of dance around it, meaning her relationship with Rupert Murdoch. Will the NY Times cover this?
Stay tuned.