Letters to the Editor
Majorajam
Published Letters: 308 Editor's Choice: 12
-
@Ben Sen
[Read the article: No makeover for Hillary -- yet]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sage wisdom Ben. No doubt the prodigal youth will eventually realize their immaturity and naivete were suffered fondly by their elders. Hey, they can always look back and laugh about their foolishness. Free love man. This is precisely why we need a candidate like Hillary: to keep us safe from irresponsible notions of hope and progress. The full-of-beans babes-in-the-woods chitlens may not have learned it yet, but us commoners know our place beneath the boot heel of the ruling class.
-
Illustrative of what?
[Read the article: Illustrative New Hampshire snippets]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn,
This post is way out of line. Kurtz's column, as you of all people should have expected, was hyperbolic and inaccurate. Tim Grieve has taken apart some of it on this web site, btw, so you wouldn't have had to look far to check into that. He's also listed all manner of negative stories that have been run on Obama (and Edwards), from pointing out his inexperience to his former drug use to whatever, which from what I've seen is the tip of the iceberg (and Bill Clinton's rants about what wasn't covered in the press about Obama were indeed, by Tim Russert ironically enough).
Meanwhile, no less than the NYT (to say nothing of Salon) has been running Hillary friendly coverage, to name just two (although I accept cable news has not been favorable). And did you consider to put their shadenfrude at Hillary's demise in the context of any other campaign disintegration? Did you not notice how much glee went along with McCain's demise, (or the historical or non-political variety, e.g. Brittany Spears)? More to the point, you have neglected to digest the locus of the press coverage, which includes the heretofore coverage of the Clinton campaign as if she were already nominated, which HUGELY helped her campaign by denying other candidate's needed exposure. Even now she continues to get more exposure than any other candidate, which, despite the fact that much of it is bad, is not the worst position to be in (see Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich for good example of said). And it bears noting that it was only after Obama starting winning the spotlight that the coverage became negative on Hillary. It was not the cause of the poll shift.
Given that all this paints a decidedly mixed picture of the press's net effect on this election, how is your gross oversimplification holding up?
Bottom line Glenn, at this point, these criticisms are so oversimplified as to be completely counterproductive. At best, you are raising issues without defining what it is that would be an appropriate model or how what's inappropriate is affecting anything. And it bears mentioning that accepting that badly flawed viewpoint has clear political implications, which makes them emotive irrespective of whether or not you possess a political position.
Seriously, if you desire to go down this route, it is incumbent upon you to define in detail what precisely your model is for how the political press ought to comport themselves as juxtaposed against 'their crimes' of in many cases being imbued with American culture and simultaneously governed by human nature. And here I mean countries that you feel are functional by comparison with US dysfunction, not abstract notions of never neverland fairness. This may be a constructive angle to explore against the highly destructive precedent you've been following.
-
Ingenius Glenn
[Read the article: Illustrative New Hampshire snippets]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You've distilled me down to two words: Obama supporter. And without knowing, me, my politics, my background, education... name... nor even as it seems reading or considering my remark. Remarkable insight and pith. Absolutely astounding.
Back when I lived in the UK, there was a leadership contest in the conservative party- the one IDS ultimately won. The front runner in that race went down in flames early and the media relished it. I suppose you can't draw any inferences or conclusions from that either. Thanks for appreciating the depth of your readership.
-
I love this theory!
[Read the article: Chris Matthews is right ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Journalists corrupt the electoral process by preempting voter judgments with their own baseless and universally inaccurate prognostications. In this most recent case, they pushed Hillary out of the race by incorrectly forecasting that she would lose and be forced out of the race before she won and practically forced her opponents out of the race. Wait... Is there a lag effect at work here?
Remarkably well formulated. Never let it be said that you can't vent your spleen and eat it too.