Letters to the Editor
GlennNYC
Published Letters: 35
-
Aravosis / Kurtz
[Read the article: Brit Hume is a "journalist"; Keith Olbermann is "partisan"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Re: Aravosis on Kurtz: Read that again. I don't think John was saying he thought Kurtz was fair, he was using "you" in the generic sense -- i.e., saying he thought the question to be asked was not "are you right or left" but "are you fair", i.e., "is one fair".
-
Strawmen.
[Read the article: A beautiful mosaic of anti-blogger hatred]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I actually like a lot of what Alter has to say normally. But his opening salvo about how people disbelieve everything from mainstream media and believe everything on line. Who are these people? Is there literally anyone who thinks that way? Even if there are, how is it that Alter manages to (head-shakingly) attribute this to the whole blogosphere?
I don't see much of anyone in the lefty blogosphere, at least, who wants to throw the MSM out or doesn't recognized the value of their reporting. In fact, that's why virtually all of them -- you, Glenn, being a prime example -- fight so hard to point out the problems the MSM has. Not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but to improve the reporting.
Yet these guys are so defensive, their response -- like Alter's -- is to refuse to engage the real criticism and just completely mischaracterize -- no, that's a euphemism, how about LIE about what the bloggers are saying. It's sad.
-
Warning: Meta ahead
[Read the article: BloggingheadsTV session with the Politico's Ben Smith]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Re the blogginhead TV format...I agree, I never watch them. I just don't like the medium. But I also agree with you, Glenn, that it gives an opportunity for immediate back and forth. Why can't this happen, though, in a blog format? Have a blogginghead blog where two bloggers are invited to participate in a back and forth, make some expectation about how quickly each one must respond to each other, etc. Slate does this sort of thing occasionally (Dahlia Lithwich and Walter Dellinger, for example, usually do a back-and-forth about the Supreme Court at the end of term), the only thing is, the responses are usually like one or maybe two a day. But if you had a commitment to a faster response time, it might make for some interesting back and forth. Just without the tv.
-
Recess AG?
[Read the article: More fallout from the Comey revelations]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If Gonzales leaves, then his replacement will have to be confirmed by the Senate, which is highly unlikely to confirm anyone who is too politically loyal to the Bush circle.
Two words: Recess Appointment. If you think Bush wouldn't do that, you really haven't been paying attention.
-
Karma's a Bitch
[Read the article: Don't sell my company to Rupert Murdoch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, Mr. Yount, you and your colleagues and predecessors at WSJ have spent your time busily beating the drum of the free markets and how magical it is. Takeovers? Love 'em. Well, the market has spoken, my friend. I'm not much for biblical quotes, but I do agree that "As ye sow, so shall ye reap."
-
To jeremys
[Read the article: Don't sell my company to Rupert Murdoch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let me just respond to jeremys -- I do appreciate taht there is a value of the WSJ's news pages (although I believe they give far too much imprimatur to the ravings of its editorial page). I think it is a shame to see it fall into the hands of someone like Murdoch. My only point is that, even for all the good news writing they do, the paper, even the news pages, is based on a very pro-market point of view, and that for the employees who have been the purveyors of that view to cry foul when it is (finally) their ox that is gored is not something that arouses much sympathy in my heart.
-
A trial with only one side's witnesses
[Read the article: The truth behind the Pollack-O'Hanlon trip to Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn, thanks for this valuable service. Like you, I'm a lawyer, and with respect to O'Hanlon's assertion that, even though virtually everyone he spoke to was hand-picked by the DOD, he had the chance to probe and question them so it's all right, it struck me that this is like saying you could have a fair trial with only one side presenting witnesses, so long as the other side had the opportunity to cross-examine them. I trust no one would argue that was a fair hearing -- well, I take that back, I guess Bush and Gonzalez would, but I mean someone who actually was interested in getting at the truth. And of course it's even worse here because at least in my hypothetical trial the opposition would presumably be actually interested in exposing lies and contradictions (and would have some evidence to use for impeachment). O'Hanlon, on the other hand, doesn't strike me as terribly interested in hearing the other side of the story.
-
Cost-free yes, but hate is still powerful too
[Read the article: Forcing Larry Craig's resignation while embracing David Vitter]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Excellent analysis, as usual, Glenn. But let's not forget basic hatred -- i.e., homophobia -- as a motivator here. This country has made great strides in its attitude toward gays and lesbians, strides I never thought I would be able to see when I first realized I was gay and started peeking out of the closet. It's even gotten to the point that overt gay-bashing is mostly seen as unacceptable, at least among the intelligentsia of this country. But let's not kid ourselves: a large segment of the population just hates us, thinks we're nasty, evil, perverted, sinners and wishes we would just go away (i.e., drop dead). Much of the Vitter/Craig differential stems from that basic fact.