Okay, I'll have to accept it if you're saying that being an editor at Salon right now is more satisfying than being a sportswriter (I hope you recognize that you could go elsewhere and be a successful sportswriter, even now), but that doesn't mean I can't try to talk you out of it.

While it's true that it's exciting to find out what the future of publications is going to be, and probably also to help make decisions for one particular publication trying to survive, it's easy to over-romanticize the role of a Salon.com staffer. In the first place, it's been a while since Salon has been on the cutting edge, and therefore Salon is a lot more likely to follow than to lead the industry, and in the second place the role of any individual there (e.g. you, King) isn't going to be very influential on journalism overall, no matter how insightful or adventurous you are. Trying to keep your ship from sinking isn't the same thing as navigating, let alone deciding what your destination should be. The people who make the decisions that will genuinely shape the industry are at a much higher level than you. I'm not trying to be an asshole here; I just mean to point out that you don't have to stay where you are in order to be a part of what you find so exciting; in fact there are probably much better places to be for that.

And furthermore, as I think another poster suggested, in order to be the trailblazer you want (and deserve) to be, you've decided to be part of a publication whose vision of its future--and thus the future of journalism, if we're to take you at your word here--includes no sports coverage. Can you really be comfortable with that?

Finally, although you sound sincere, I just find it hard to believe that you wouldn't rather be writing a sports column. If that's true then so be it, but I'll join the others in saying that you'd be making a far, far greater contribution to your profession and to the people it serves by simply writing about sports (someplace, anyplace) than by being an editor at Salon.

P.S., to the editors: As soon as Greenwald leaves, so do I.

We are willing to laugh away misogyny (or "rape") and murder, but the salient point is that we don't really have a problem with how we understand murder: everyone hates it, it is not excused by anyone, and it's seen as pretty much the pinnacle of misanthropic immorality. On the other hand, misogyny still gets a pass ...

Aside from your appallingly casual conflation of rape and misogyny in this passage, what is your basis for this claim? Where did you get the idea that everyone has appropriate respect for the severity of murder but not for the severity of rape, especially when all you have to do is take a quick glance at popular culture to see how the crime of murder is regularly joked about, treated as routine and pedestrian, and even fetishized, while the crime of rape is far more often treated as grave and off-limits to humor?

In fact, I'd argue the very fact that the terms "murder" and "kill" are used in all sorts of metaphorical ways while the term "rape" is much more circumscribed (which is the basis for this article) is evidence for the opposite of what you claim here.

And to whomever claimed that murder is a "gender-neutral" crime while rape isn't, please go check the gender breakdown of murder victims and report back.

Sorry, but the only basis I can find for objecting to the devaluation of the term "rape" without objecting equally to the devaluation of the term "murder" is sexism.

9/10 rape victims are women and girls with rapists choosing their victims, with rare exception, due to gender. Thus, it is overwhelmingly a violent act of misogynistic bigotry.

Whether or not rape is an act of misogynistic bigotry, the fact you cited here doesn't prove it to be. By this standard, purse-snatching would be even more so an act of misogynistic bigotry. Choosing a crime victim based on his or her gender is not necessarily an act of either misogyny or misandry, nor of bigotry.

"Now I'm all foreign radio, all the time."

I don't want to hijack the discussion, but I'd love to know what foreign radio you turn to.

And while I'm at it, the foreign news sources I've encountered focus either on the news of their country of origin or on world events, which are good for what they are, but can anyone lead me to some news reporting that focuses on U.S. news and isn't infected by this disease made clear by Glenn, the one that makes me bang my head against the steering wheel when listening to NPR lately?

I can't even find a job and I'm still giving you $20. Just keep doing what you're doing, Glenn.

And to the commenter who assumed that the author of the thesis had an anti-male axe to grind . . . It seems to me she admirably reported what she found - in glaring contradiction to your suspiciously overheated remarks. Hate women much?

Are you referring to mynameisdan? If so, go reread his post, because he's exactly right. The evidence from this study showed that women, not men, were discriminating against women, which is the opposite of what the researcher expected to find, so she "charitably" theorized--apparently on the basis of no evidence at all--that this must be caused by male discrimination somewhere else. Why? What possible reason is there for this theory other than that the researcher has a bias that only men, and never women, can be responsible for sexism?

Hate men much, GeorgiaProg?