Letters to the Editor
little lord baltimore
Published Letters: 191 Editor's Choice: 9
-
Not so fast Joan
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joan,
In reading Salon's coverage of this election, I had come to the conclusion that Salon, under your leadership, was attempting to redress some of the "sexist" coverage Hillary has received in the media. Even though I support Obama, and even though I don't agree that Obama has been given the "free pass" that Hillary and Tina Fey described, I don't really have a problem with that.
But I do think it is disingenuous of you to claim that your posts come from a place of "seeking the truth."
In the last months you have posted repeatedly about Reverend Wright, repeatedly insisting that Obama has more to answer for. You continued to post about Wright even when, as Glenn so eloquently described in his post, it was clear that much of the issue was directly related to racism in the media and in American society. Your last post on the issue hinted without reference or citation that Wright was anti-semitic and/or anti-Israel and that Obama should answer for that as well. That crosses a line way past seeking truth and enters into territory where you are trying to re-ignite a controversy that is dying because it will help Hillary.
You criticized Obama for not going far enough in his speech about race, but have never called for or questioned why Hillary has not given a speech about gender. And yes, as a feminist and a female voter who was called a traitor, I believe gender has been as divisive an issue in this election as race.
Even though you claim to have been active in working to end racism, you refuse to acknowledge why many of Hillary's comments were so offensive to people of color. I realize that they were not offensive to you, but they have been damaging to Hillary's campaign, and it would be helpful and relevant to provide some analysis as to why so many voters did find them so troubling.
And more significantly, for me, you have not allowed yourself to see beyond the sexism/racism dichotomy. There was a really brief moment in this election when the media was forced to consider that for African American women race and gender are inseparable, and then Obama won South Carolina and nobody cared anymore. I can get superficial analysis and opinions about whether racism is worse than sexism or vice versa from any news outlet, but I started reading Salon because I was hoping that I would get more.
Similarly, there has been one poorly written article with poorly constructed arguments about the "Latino" vote. But even there, no one at Salon has taken the time to examine if the Latino vote is dividing on gender, educational, environmental or socio-economic lines. Just like no one has taken the time to consider how or why the 10-20% of African Americans who do support Clinton made their decisions.
I would hope that Salon's editor would have a strong sense of purpose and social justice, that's what I was hoping to find at Salon, but if in fact you do not support Hillary, then I can only conclude that you decided to address and try to redress issues of sexism in this campaign, to the exclusion of other issues. I think that was a mistake. I don't mean to sound overly dramatic, but I think as an editor, it's your job to maintain the public trust in what you publish. Unfortunately, the election coverage in Salon has made me lose some of that trust. Except for Glenn's always excellent writing, I now expect to find biased articles and simplistic arguments.
I actually stopped reading most of Salon's election coverage and I stopped reading most of the letters that were posted simply because I know that I will vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination. Hillary's campaign blunders, the kid-gloved coverage, cries of victimhood, and excuses that she was getting from you, and the insults that were hurled at Obama supporters from the comments section had me reconsidering whether I could really vote for her in the end. I realized that as distasteful and disingenuous as I found the coverage in Salon, it was just too important.
I hope that when this election is over, I will find more to like.
Ama S.
(apologies if this has been covered already, 500+ letters is a lot to wade through)
-
@AKASmith and Uncle Fester
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Oh yes they are the same. She as much as admitted it another thead. Little Lord Fauntleroy is a children's book. She simply split up the name."
Um, no. While I agree with many of Fauntleroy's points, we are not the same person. I live in Baltimore; I like the alliteration of the L sound in "Little Lord Baltimore" and I like(d) that it was somewhat gender neutral.
Sorry for the confusion, but there really are two women who are anti-sexism, pro-feminism and pro-Obama!
-
@Uncle Fester
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I also desperately need a vacation. I guess Fauntleroy and I have that in common as well.