Letters to the Editor
razbar
Published Letters: 3
-
Woodward's Access
[Read the article: Woodward's disgrace]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1. Was it one mistake or two, from what I can tell, the paper goes from zero to two randomly.
2. Could Woodward or someone else explain the Post's policy for other writers in the past 5 years as a comparison point for understanding the response to the criticisms at hand--same reprimand? different? why?
3. I must be obtuse, because I'm not seeing the parallels of integrity from Watergate that the Post's editorial does--I don't think either of them was writing a book back then, as reporting, and holding things back for publication--was I wrong? Does Woodward have a contract on this topic for publication? We should know now.
4. Compare and contrast Woodward and Miller on this story--how should the Post be proud of the tradition at your paper versus hers?
5. By the way, still looking to cling to Woodward as a hero in his field--sadly disappointed that perhaps he lost his way.
Extremely disappointed on this subject. FYI, as opposed to Woodward, I want to make clear that I have no involvement in this other than watching and reading--seriously, what a joke he has become.
-
Opal Article
[Read the article: How Opal Mehta saved our lives]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This article was ridiculous. I suggest that you rethink publishing articles by authors that are still trying to figure out their own issues. It is a bit too much to expect us to delve into the substantive issue--not really addressed here--and then try to figure out the "bigger" picture issues--I'm not sure that is what we were presented by this auther--seemed like a "smaller" vision of things. Perhaps if this author could have plagerized a bit as well to make the point clearer, we could have followed it and have been given some substance for argument.
-
Last thought
[Read the article: How Opal Mehta saved our lives]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There was an excellent commentary on the subject matter of this "piece" and perspective that I think it was trying to offer that I just found in the WSJ from Friday. It certainly did much more to convey the issues that were apparently trying to be addressed by this author. I must now go rethink a few things as I've just recommended the WSJ over Salon for a better perspective on a story.