Letters to the Editor
Hrefna
Published Letters: 13 Editor's Choice: 1
-
I'm Waiting Too
[Read the article: Sympathy for the devil: Leave Rev. Al alone!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Like Harbinger I'm waiting to see Salon account for the strange editorial decision making process that led to this article being published without any evidence to back up the serious allegations contained within it. I pay my premium subscription fee so that Salon can be something more than a blog aggregator, I expect serious journalism from Salon and looking at the only evidence supplied in this article (the NY Post article http://www.nypost.com/seven/03122007/news/columnists/jealous_rev__al_blasts_barack_columnists_fredric_u__dicker.htm )I see no reason to suppose that the anonymous sources for this article came from the Obama camp. Just to make this easier, I have copied and pasted below every reference to the article's sourcing:
a prominent black Democratic activist who knows Sharpton.
said the activist, who supports Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
said another black Democratic activist.
Sharpton also has a personal ax to grind, a source close to him said.
Democratic activists agree.
said a prominent New York official
The official, who has strong ties to the Clintons and is prominent in Democratic circles
So where is Obama's influence? Good journalists back up their arguments with evidence and reasoning.
-
RE: Proof Meet Pudding
[Read the article: Sympathy for the devil: Leave Rev. Al alone!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Indeed, Stackey, they are Dickerson's own opinions, but she has chosen to share them with Salon's readership and Salon has chosen to publish them. Therefore as a member of Salon's readership I have the right to ask why these are Dickerson's opinions as she provided no evidence or reasoning which which to back them up, (indeed they seem to directly contradict the only source she cites) and also the question more important to me: why on earth Salon chose to publish them without such evidence or reasoning and in the face of such contradiction.
-
RE: Do you have inside information about Obama/Sharpton?
[Read the article: Coloring in Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am right there with you, jebldmm. I've already posted this point in the Dickerson thread but I think it's worth restating here, especially in light of this attempt to use that article as evidence that Obama attacked Sharpton via the New York Post, which attempt makes me even more worried about declining editorial standards at Salon.
Dickerson's Sharpton/Obama piece, Sympathy for the devil: Leave Rev. Al alone! Why did unnamed Obama supporters attack Al Sharpton? He's only asking questions that need to be answered , is based on the premise that Obama's supporters set out to humiliate Sharpton by anonymously sourcing an article in the NY Post saying that Sharpton is jealous of Obama. That article can be read here:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03122007/news/columnists/jealous_rev__al_blasts_barack_columnists_fredric_u__dicker.htm
There is nothing in this article that supports the idea that the anonymous sources were Obama supporters, in fact the various anonymous sources, when their allegiance is identified, are clearly identified as supporting Clinton or Sharpton, not Obama:
a prominent black Democratic activist who knows Sharpton.
said the activist, who supports Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
said another black Democratic activist.
Sharpton also has a personal ax to grind, a source close to him said.
Democratic activists agree.
said a prominent New York official
The official, who has strong ties to the Clintons and is prominent in Democratic circles
But in classic "when did you stop beating your wife" style Dickerson bases her entire article on the premise that Obama was behind it without providing either any evidence that he was, any reasoning as to why he might have been behind it, or any explanation as to why she thinks he was behind it even though the NY Post clearly identifies Clinton & Sharpton sources instead.
Joan Walsh, I am very disappointed to see you using this badly-argued, ill-supported article as evidence of anything, but I am even more disappointed to see you using it before you have justified the editorial decision to publish such a shoddy piece of journalism in the first place.