Letters to the Editor
Margalis
Published Letters: 614 Editor's Choice: 16
-
CP is simply not a progressive liberal (yay no post editing!)
[Read the article: Camille's back!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]CP is not a progressive liberal (despite her protestations), but that isn't a fault. I would welcome a thoughtful conservative at Salon. A thoughtful moderate. I like thoughtful writing. I may not agree with a thoughtful conservative voice but I would listen to it, consider it, and maybe even change my mind on occasion.
I'll listen to a well-researched, well-supported opinion from anyone. A Holocaust denier. A member of the KKK. And I'd rather not listen to a sloppy, poorly presented opinion even if I agree with it.
Demanding that Salon contributors all support a progressive liberal agenda strikes me as wrong. The truth does not rest with a specific agenda. Journalism is about the truth first and foremost, wherever it may lie.
That said, demanding that Salon contributors all be intellectually honest and coherent is quite reasonable.
-
Blogs are simply the new personal home page.
[Read the article: Fighting words]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]They replace "I like Star Trek - now here are some pictures of my cats."
A blog is just some writing on the web, posted with off-the-shelf software. Nothing more, nothing less. They aren't journalism, they aren't searching for truth, they aren't anything.
Of course, some blogs are searching for truth. Some are journalism. But talking about the 'blogosphere' as a whole is nonsense. You don't go to school, take an oath or undergo training before signing up at blogger. You have no obligation. There is no overriding objective.
As a journalist you have, at least in theory, some guiding principles. A blog is whatever shit some guy decided to write. The blog I read most is this one:
jchensor.blogspot.com (Go random plug)
Yeah, exactly. How does that fit into your theory of bloggers? It doesn't, because bloggers have no common bond other than they like to write a little.
It may be proper to discuss the role blogs play in politics. But it doesn't make sense to discuss what blogging is about - it isn't about anything other than what the individual blogger feels like talking about.
Blogging is just writing. There is no larger meaning.
-
JazzGrrl is correct
[Read the article: Real talk with Bill Maher]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Salon interviews are usually very pitched one way or another. A subject the interviewer likes, Bill or Camille say, is given a free pass without any serious questioning. A subject the interviewer dislikes is hassled.
We should be as critical of our opinions and supporters as that of our opponents - if not more so.
"While priding itself on its independent journalism, and certainly still providing a good deal of it via Tim Grieve and many others, I think Salon seems to be focused more and more on writers & commentators themselves and less about the subject ostensibly at hand."
That is the transformation that has taken place in journalism. We started with a fake pure objectivism. Then we moved to the acknowledgement that the reporters are part of the process, injecting their own biases. Now we are at the point where reporters inject themselves into stories innapropriately, or simply write thinly-veiled stories about themselves. There is a place in journalism for personal stories but it has gotten out of control.
If Salon is doing this today, it is only catching up to the curve.
-
Ombudsman...huh?
[Read the article: The media is continuously violating its own anonymity policies re: Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Someone explain this concept to me. An employee of a paper is paid a salary by that paper to critique the paper.
The best Ombudsman is the one that keeps busy but does nothing of note.
Does any paper really want a serious Ombudsman? One that will point out substantial flaws and perhaps drive down readership? The Ombudsman is a paid employee no?
-
This is hilarious
[Read the article: Debate with Frank Gaffney]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Nobody is talking about this." [treason]
"You are!"
...
"I'm not suggesting that anyody is treasonous for engaging in it. [debate]"
---
His argument is that he can say its okay to kill people for their opinion because nobody is saying we should kill people for their opinion - including him! Bizzaro world.
This reminds me of Ann Coulter on her book Treason. Some host asked her if she could name a single person guilty of treason - she couldn't.
These people are paper tigers!
They are great at spreading memes through interviews, talking unopposed on TV, writing hatchet jobs - stand up to them and they implode.
-
dwg was kidding also
[Read the article: Camille's back!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Read his letter again, if that is what you are referring to Spurt. Clearly he was in on the joke.
Of course everything you said was correct. The first time I read Camille I thought she was novel and interesting. I thought the same thing the first time I watched "The O'Reilly Factor" though....my ability to make snap judgements is in need of an overhaul.