Letters to the Editor
lexsali
Published Letters: 73 Editor's Choice: 9
-
Made me a believer...again...
[Read the article: Michelle Obama gets real]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ok, so now is it Michelle or Hillary? For all us women looking out for the woman that can take on the establishment, change things in Washington, not be bought out, have the diplomacy and tact to unravel the last 8 years worth of tangled webs, and just be an intelligent woman in power, which one is it?
I'm looking for change, people. I thought Obama was it, because of his politics of hope, and because I can just see his earnestness and his plain good common sense, his honesty, when he speaks.
But for a while, it began to look like Hillary was the real go-getter, that Obama just didn't have the oomph that Hillary did, especially when you watched her take her attackers head on and set them in their place. Her answers were always right.
But now they're looking a little too right. Now it just seems like she's always right, all the time, because she knows exactly what people want to hear. And because she never actually takes a stand on anything, so no one can ever pin her down. I don't blame her: so many special interests have bought her over that I don't think she can give a straight answer even if she wanted to.
So, back to Obama? Maybe Michelle is the woman I've been looking for? Aside from sharing her love for designer boots, I can actually see her in the White House, making tough decisions with tact and grace, debt-free (and not just student loan debt), and a real, honest to goodness diplomat.
The Obamas might be just the thing I've been looking for. Thanks, Traister, for reaffirming my wavering faith in the Obamas.
-
Where is this coming from???
[Read the article: Demand answers from Time magazine]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This issue was brought to light because GG focused on it and didn't let it die. It was, however, an uphill battle, one not many of us are willing to fight on so many other isssues that the press is falsely reporting.
You have to wonder, what else out there is blatant propaganda? The war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the 'war on terror', the Iran nukes issue, the Pakistan crisis, the economy, the 2008 presidential elections...how can we believe anything any news magazine tells us anymore? I didn't even know who Joe Klein was before this issue- just like I don't know the thousands of other nameless, faceless editors out there. How can I trust their words when I don't know if they're all Joe Kleins or not?
Where is this coming from? Is this freedom of press? What is allowing our so-called "free media" to get away with this? What is the root cause of this burgeoning irresponsibility?
-
Time...
[Read the article: It's gift-giving time, and I'm cranky about gift cards and pushy kids]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You are only trying to hold onto something, some shred of the world as it used to be before it started spinning so fast.
You're not the only one. I bet your parents felt the same way when it came time to give you gifts for Christmas when you were a child, giving you things they never would have gotten as kids. Times change. People change.
One thing you could do, as a lot of families do, is establish new traditions. Like, maybe you do give them gift cards for Christmas, but maybe you can also have them pick a charity you donate something to on their behalf, or maybe you can make a rule that everyone receives a book in addition to their gift, and you pick out the book you think they would like, etc. etc.
-
No way...
[Read the article: The NYT's Michael Cooper demonstrates what real reporting is]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]All of these statements are incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong . . . .An examination of many of his statements by The New York Times, other news organizations and independent groups have turned up a variety of misstatements, virtually all of which cast Mr. Giuliani or his arguments in a better light. -quote from Mr. Cooper's article
Huh? Seriously? This is what reporting is 'supposed' to be like? This sounds more like today's op-eds, not like most of the articles I read in the news today. Actually, not most, but I'd say 99% of so-called 'objective' reporting sounds nothing like this. 'Objective' reporting these days sounds exactly like a note-taker's essay covering the most important points of the story, whether they be true or false. It's actually pretty sad, isn't it, that we would see true 'journalistic reporting' as an anomaly amidst a sea of stenographic reporting? Maybe it's a self-fulfilling prophecy: the less journalists do it, the less they want to do it, the more it's discouraged, because it would stick out like a sore thumb.
-
And yeah, Muslim is a smear now?
[Read the article: The NYT's Michael Cooper demonstrates what real reporting is]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]GG, the term 'smear campaign' is not appropriate here. It is not a 'smear' to be called a Muslim, and if it is, then there is seriously something wrong with the world today. I'm not sure if you used it first, or if you are repeating the term used by other commentators.
If you used it first, then it's clearly inappropriate, and I hope you understand why.
If you are repeating the term, then you are guilty of the same 'stenographic' reporting you have been campaigning against, in which journalists merely repeat things without checking their accuracy.