Letters to the Editor
-
Attention Salon Tech Support
I seem to have accidentally stumbled on a page from 1994. Tina Brown, Princess Di, what the heck? Could you please flush your cache and update the site? Thanks.
-
Really? Princess Di?
Really? Princess Di?
What, we couldn't squeeze out another story about Paris Hilton? Or the press' coverage of Paris Hilton?
C'mon!
-
Give me a Break
Articles like this crap are of a piece with the hounding paparazzi that killed this woman. Let it go; the only thing that makes her death significant is the absurdly excessive coverage of it.
-
Copy editing....
I don't know why Salon is interested in Tina Brown's take on the late Princess of Wales, but as long as you're going to print this piece you ought to fix your errors. It's "Eton," not "Eaton," and it's "Maurice Templesman," not "Maurice Templeman."
-
Actually, it's "Tempelsman" ...
... but you're right -- the copyediting on this piece was atrocious.
-
Poor Little Princess?
I like Tina Brown's writing and respect her world view but I just can't buy it. Does it stink that Diana had crappy parents? Yes. Does it stink that she came from a world and a class where getting married well was the pinnacle of what a young woman could hope to achieve? Yes. Regardless, I have a hard time respecting anyone who garners all of their self-worth by how an individual man or the masses are adoring her. I could never shake the feeling that part of her good works was about sticking it to Charles and the Queen.
She had two children who she apparently loved more than anything. And yet, she was unable to make choies that kept her with them. I find this very, very sad. But I don't find much to respect.
-
What? Is this a time warp?
We don't need yet another story on Princess Diana - has the press not had enough of this tale yet? And why is Salon reviving this subject today? What pertinence does it have to anyone reading this on this day? And why, for heaven's sake, should we care about how Diana became a humanitarian (if that's truly to be believed)?
Salon, please, PLEASE, just let this go...preferably into the sewer system where all those other useless, gossipy tales about Di and her kind have and should have gone. Ugh. Boo to Tina Brown and Salon for allowing this to see the light.
-
???
Diana?? Really? Are we still interested in this? Were we ever? I can't imagine why Tina Brown would write a book about Diana at this time, why Salon would publish this article, and why in the world we would want to read a blog about it.
I'd rather read about Paris Hilton.
-
Spare us please!
For the love and consideration of Princess Diana's family and friends, why not allow her to rest in peace? This is journalism/sensationalism that numbs us to the important matters in life.
Salon - shame on you! You now join the ranks of all other journalistic pond scum.
-
The 90s called. They want their pop culture back.
First Camille Paglia, then Berkley Breathed, now Tina Brown and Princess Diana.
Wow, Salon keeps rocketing its readers fearlesslyl into the 1990s!!!
I can't believe some people actually pay for access to this shit. I mean, I'm all in favor of masochism if that's what floats your boat, but there have to be some limits.
-
Shape up, Joan Walsh
Please learn how to do a better job, Joan. This material isn't worth my money as a premium subscriber.
-
Sometimes I agree with the old isolationists
Hey, I don't care about Di, and I don't think good Americans care about the private lives of British royalty. We're the other guys, remember? They friggin' burned the White House! They spent the whole damn 19th century trying to subvert us! They loved the Civil War, and almost recognized the Confederacy, which would have screwed us.
Princess Di was a relatively decent woman, and that's why she was far better off living on her own. But the brainless fascination with Di is no better than the fascination with all the celebutards, who are our equivalent of royalty. The hell with 'em all.
I'm reminded of a story during the '90s, whose name I can't remember, that told of how Queen Elizabeth got by on welfare when Royalty was abolished. I look forward to that day.
-
"A new way of being British..."
...had its genesis in events that happened nearly 20 years before Di happened on the world stage. The whole British Invasion/Carnaby Street/Swinging London culture of the mid-60s intensified an acceleration of the demise of the old British class system, which was already in a slow free-fall since WWII.
The post-60s generations, of which Di and Fergie were a part, simply reaped the lessons of this movement and expanded them into the aristocratic classes.
BTW I always preferred Fergie to Di. Still do. And in some respects neither of them hold a candle to America's very own Bessie Wallis Warfield Spencer Simpson Windsor.
-
Actually, I’ve heard this all before
I’m fascinated with Princess Diana – but this article had me rolling my eyes and doing lots of skimming. Tina Brown bragging about how she went to school with that kind of girl and how they almost did lunch just isn't an interesting read.
It's bad when you make a person miss your Paris Hilton coverage.
-
Dear People Magazine... I mean, Salon.
Must we be subjected to yet another in the seemingly endless stories of a rich, unhappy-- and in this case, dead-- bint, and the erstwhile travails she faced in life?
More to the point, must we be subjected to this seemingly endless maundering on the pages of Salon?
News flash-- Iraq's still a quagmire, the administration is still a cesspool of corruption, global warming is getting worse and a Democratic controlled Congress can't seem to do squat about any of it. Pick a topic. Any one of them is of greater import than this claptrap.
Another news flash-- She's STILL dead!
-
Srsly
Couldn't believe my eyes when I was assaulted with an extreme closeup of Princess freaking Diana upon opening Salon.
This is seriously bad stuff. Who cares what Tina Brown did in school? Who cares about Princess Diana?
How is this article enriching your readers in any way? Can you answer that question, honestly? How is this article giving something to your reader? How is it informing, entertaining, enlightening or challenging him or her?
I'd love to see Joan Walsh answer that in her blog.
And four pages of it?
God, anybody remember Salon from just before the 2000 election to just post-9/11? What great writing. What incredible investigative journalism. What insightful analytical articles about how everything had changed and how we had changed, too.
I miss it a lot
Now we get Paris Hilton, Princess Di, and women's issues isolated in their very own ghetto.
War Room is still worth reading daily. Glenn Greenwald is a national treasure and a must-read. Sometimes I check out the Blog report. Then it's off to better sources of good articles.
Your readership has to be declining with the way the quality of the articles has declined. It seems so simple - why on earth don't you revert to the Salon of 2000-2001? Hire better writers, cut the celebrity and pop culture bullshit, refocus on politics, stop sending family and womens' issues to the Pink Ghetto, bring back copy editors (it's obvious to the most casual reader that they've been cut out, probably due to financial cutbacks)and ...
Ah, the hell with it. Like you've listened to anyone who said it before me.