Letters to the Editor
Margalis
Published Letters: 614 Editor's Choice: 16
-
Obviously the problem here
[Read the article: The face of war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]is that the liberal media shows us far too many of these sorts of things, biasing us against our wonderful war.
For each death of an armed forces person in Iraq there are 10 maimings. Yeah...10 maimings is better than 10 deaths I suppose but seeing this stuff on a daily basis would turn us against the war right quick.
The sad part here is that this guy did what he thought was right, went to a bat for a cause he believed in and paid the price - but his effort was totally wasted and never had a chance of accomplishing anything constructive.
His life is irrecovably changed for the worst, for nothing.
-
Isn't the actress leaving the show?
[Read the article: I Like to Watch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thought they were forced to write her out at the last minute because the actress playing Starbuck was jumping ship.
-
Why the headshot?
[Read the article: Hillary vs. Obama: It's a drawl!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Usually it's the subject of the column or something that illustrates the content of the piece."
Why are you confused again exactly? Cammy writes about herself. That *is* the content of the piece. Cammy ordered chicken for dinner, Cammy watched some Fox News, Cammy listened to the radio, Cammy predicted Britney would shave her head, Cammy got some beans... "Camille on Camille" is the entire point.
-
Salon deletes my letter
[Read the article: Hillary vs. Obama: It's a drawl!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Because it called out Cammy and Joan Walsh for printing her.
What a joke. Incredible cowards strike again.
-
Why are they deleting my letters?
[Read the article: Hillary vs. Obama: It's a drawl!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So I explained the title of my first letter that was deleted and made it clear it was not an instigation of violence or a serious threat - and that letter got deleted too!
LOL.
What am I saying that is so bad? That Cammy is a self-obsessed dope? That Joan Walsh is a coward and is giving Cammy a stage to peddle her idiocy? The Salon is addicted to the page views Cammy brings in?
Or is the problem that I'm linking to Eric Alterman's book that illustrates what a cogent argument and actual research really looks like?
Is the problem here that I'm pointing out what an insult it is to the other writers of Salon to put dear Cammy front-and-center? "Hey Eric, my worthless opinion invalidates a book's worth of research and your hair looks gay to boot!"
The funny part here is that it proves the editors do read the letters frequently, they are just too chickenshit to respond.
Maybe Camille is having a hissy fit?
-
"Liberal bias"
[Read the article: Hillary vs. Obama: It's a drawl!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A couple of years ago Salon featured articles arguing that there was no liberal bias in the media. I linked to the book Eric Alterman wrote TWICE and it was deleted both times.
The "liberal media" went right along with the Iraq war and is doing it again in Iran, credulously reporting faked intel from "anonymous sources" with everything to gain.
If Cammy wants to actually *argue* that the media has liberal bias she can feel free, but she didn't actually do that. She merely said it, without any proof or explanation.
I guess the moral of this story is that Salon now rejects actual research and insight in favor of lobbing hand grenades. And when you remind them of that they'll delete your letter.
-
Scott Rosenberg stop fibbing please
[Read the article: Hillary vs. Obama: It's a drawl!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My first letter could *possibly* be interpreted that way. My second letter made it 100% clear that I was speaking figuratively. I said exactly that much in plain english.
Have you ever heard the expression "take a horse behind the barn and shoot it"? Gee, am I saying that Camille is a horse? Guess I am! And Salon must be located in a barn!
What I'm saying is fire her you dope.
Coming from an editorial staff that doesn't know what "uppity" means I guess this isn't that surprising. Figure of speech? Never heard of it!
Now that you've crawled out from under your rock, why don't you try explaining why you print the crap Camille vomits out? We know you're reading the letters now.
-
I'm late to the party but check out the PDF records
[Read the article: Lying to Congress has become a Republican principle, literally]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]MSNBC or CNN has the PDFs of emails you can look at.
Kind of hard to read but some of it is very clear. The most disturbing part to me was a section devoted entirely to PR. To paraphrase:
"When we try to fire these people they are going to make noise, so we need some good spin. Everyone answer the questions in the same way:
...
Why was I fired?: You've done a good job but we wanted to give somebody else a chance!"
Totally consistent with how these people operate. Make sure you keep your false story straight, make sure you don't engage in any substantive discussion at all. Very similar to the Iraq debate. Whatever you do, do NOT give the real reasons, do NOT debate, do NOT explain. PR from start to finish.