Letters to the Editor
scoober620
Published Letters: 14
-
Call a spade a spade
[Read the article: The Politico sewer]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Kitt
Look, I'm just saying that Glenn was scolding the politico, and actually calling it a "gossip rag", for publishing articles about Edward's haircut and such, while at the same time remaining silent about the same type of article when it appears in Salon. For some reason I felt that this was a little hypocritical. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but that's how I feel. I understand that there may be a different viewpoint which could convince me that I am mistaken, but it has not as yet evolved in my mind and I have not heard anyone articulate it, except to say that GG has only so much time..etc....
I'm sure that he could care less if I feel that his actions appear hypocritical to me, which explains why he has not tried to defend himself.
He did reply thus:
"I thought the original story was stupid and promoted those standard gender stereotypes, though not with malice. He then wrote a follow-up article clarifying his intent, which I think made the story less stupid and more meritorious, though still reasonably worthy of criticism.
I only write about one or, at most, two topics a day. There are all sorts of examples of these gender-based claims around that I don't write about. I'm not a shark patrolling the waters looking for each example to jump on. I write about them when they are significant and I have something to say about them that I haven't already said.
There seems to be some sense that I have a special obligation here to attack this article because it was in Salon -- as though I am responsible for its content or that I have to prove that I'm willing to criticize Salon. I'm not responsible for their content and I don't feel the slightest obligation to prove anything."
I don't think that this is really a defense of my accusation of hypocrisy, although I could be wrong about that too. I do appreciate the response though and have said so. He does say: "I write about them when they are significant and I have something to say about them that I haven't already said."
I think the fact that the article was in the same publication that HE appears in could be considered significant.
-
Kitt
[Read the article: The Politico sewer]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"For you to accuse him of hypocrisy because he doesn't write about something you think he should write about seems absurd and self absorbed to me."
But I did not accuse him for what you say.
WHAT I SAID WAS:
"Look, I'm just saying that Glenn was scolding the politico, and actually calling it a "gossip rag", for publishing articles about Edward's haircut and such, while at the same time remaining silent about the same type of article when it appears in Salon."
He called a publication a name for publishing a series of articles with a certain theme, and then, the publication THAT HE IS ASSOCIATED WITH publishes an article with (what I feel is) the same theme. But no name calling for the publication THAT HE IS ASSOCIATED WITH. I'm sorry but in the same circumstances I would feel obligated to explain why I am treating one publication one way, but not the other.
-
KITT
[Read the article: The Politico sewer]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Well then, you'd be one busy SOB if you were writing on Salon and had to take on every Camille Paglia article, among others, aside from writing about other things of interest to you. I guess you'd be the Salon Watchdog?"
If I made a point of criticizing some other publication for the same thing, yes I would feel obligated to mention it.
"you'd be one busy SOB"----I didn't say that he should comment on everything, just those things that are written, for which he had PREVIOUSLY attacked other publications.
"Fortunately for most of us readers, Glenn Greenwald chooses what he wants to write about instead of writing out of some bogus obligation in accordance with the demands of some who call 'hypocrisy' on him when he doesn't meet their 'high standards' and expectations."
Isn't one major point of media critism to have a debate about these issues so that we can decide what standards and expectations should be followed. You may be right, that my expectations are too high, but the politico could dismiss Glenn's arguments just by saying that his are too high too.
My concept of this obligation may be bogus, but you have not shown that. You just state it as if it's a fact.
If we don't hold the publications that WE ARE ASSOCIATED WITH to the same standards that we expect others to follow, then our credibility as an independant critic may suffer.
-
Absurd, how?
[Read the article: The Politico sewer]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You answer me by saying that you consider my standards bogus and absurd. You give no examples, and you do not explain your reasoning. Are there any standards of journalism or punditry that you do ascribe to? Do you feel that a media critic has ANY standards to follow, or do you just accept any behavior by those that say what you want to hear. In line with what I wrote yesterday, I respect and admire Glenn's writing. I check his blog everyday. I've bought and read 2 of his books. I didn't know that that meant that I was not to voice my opinion about a particular issue that arose, lest I am called absurd or bogus. And the person who calls me these things does not even have the courtesy of explaining why they think these things. Are we not judged by the actions of the publication that we choose to have our writing appear? Should we be? Do we have an obligation to hold those whom we are affiliated with to the same standards as we hold others? Or do we not have that obligation? Are these absurd standards? Or are they bogus?