Letters to the Editor
bystander
Published Letters: 1652
-
bamage
[Read the article: Time magazine lavishly rewards journalistic malpractice]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wow. Are you ever correct that getting in here today was a struggle. At first I thought it was just Unclaimed Territory I couldn't get to. But, then I had a heck of a time even getting to salon.com. I thought it was Mozilla, so I tried Firefox and Internet Explorer. Slate, Time, the LA Times, The NY Times, etc all loaded instantly. But, Salon wouldn't load at all. I was about ready to go to my husband's computer (satellite as opposed to a Qwest DSL). Rattling in the back of my head was the nagging thought that if my connection depended on a part of the net maintained by AOL, the issue of net neutrality was something I was about to experience in real time.
I read Time Magazine as a kid growing up. I think I subscribed for a couple of years as an adult - maybe 25 years ago. A year ago we got one of those "offers" from a credit card company that my husband accepted. Read it through one cycle. When the renewal appeared, we declined. It just wasn't the same magazine I remembered. Klein's columns were part of that decision. Subscribing most recently did solve one mystery for me, however. Where in the heck this notion of dashboard metrics came from. An agency I was affiliated with not too long ago became absolutely enamored of dashboard metrics. It was a stupid idea in the context they used it, but now I can guess where they got it. It's stupid the way Time uses it as well.
-
re: updates; yours and Joe's
[Read the article: Time magazine lavishly rewards journalistic malpractice]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Interesting update, Glenn on The Center for Citizen Media. And, it appears that all is not done at Swampland, either. Joe has poseted an update to his most recent post (linked at my sig). But, given how difficult it is to get into you letters right now, I'll quote it:
Update: Some readers have jumped to the mistaken conclusion that I spoke only with Republicans regarding the FISA bill. Not true. As usual, I spoke with people in both parties—but I may have misinterpreted a Democratic source’s point about the difference between individual and “basket” warrants. If I did, a correction will appear in the print magazine next week. But, as I said above, there are disputes about what the bill’s language actually means and I need further clarification, just to be sure I get it right…this time.
-
Whew!
[Read the article: Time magazine lavishly rewards journalistic malpractice]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That was an exciting ride. Me, too, Jim on forgoing the previews. Seemed enough to just keep the connection. Looks like systems are normal now, however.
-
jinxed
[Read the article: Time magazine lavishly rewards journalistic malpractice]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I spoke too soon. Systems are normal if you go through Salon's main page and click on the letters link attached to the headline of Glenn's post. But if you go to Glenn's site through a bookmark you may have made for his site, there are no options to comment (or, read other comments) at all.
-
Holly McLachlan
[Read the article: Joe Klein digs Time's hole deeper still]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Regarding the slagfest or, did you mean slugfest? [I can barely keep up with the way language morphs on teh intertubes. Anyway, Paul Krugman on that notion:
Early in my tenure at The NYT, I was advised that it’s a bad idea to devote a column to attacking another columnist — not just at The Times, but anywhere. Why? Because it makes you look small — as if you have nothing better to do than snipe at other commentators, rather than trying to deal with real problems.
Of course that didn't stop Krugman from going after David Brooks on Reagan's "southern strategy" at all. Didn't even seem to slow him down. But, it alludes to some explicit rule that make make it difficult for a columnist at Newsweek, or some other outlet, to pick it up.
-
Circling the wagons
[Read the article: Joe Klein digs Time's hole deeper still]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It can be said, Hamsher's got skirt. [My understanding is "skirt" is the acceptable female gender equivalent to "balls".] It's likely Priscilla Painton wasn't prepared to receive Jane's call based on her response. Why Painton wasn't expecting such a call speaks volumes. I wonder who one her staff failed to warn her. Can't believe that no one at Time follows FireDogLake or Unclaimed Territory.
-
holy Flying Spaghetti Monster
[Read the article: Demand answers from Time magazine]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's really kind of amazing the Deputy Managing Editor at Time would blurt what she did, and then hang up on Jane. Jane Hamsher, no less. I actually had to laugh. That's a MySpace junior high response if I ever heard one. One assumes, I suppose, that Priscilla Painton is at least 25? As someone said at FDL, It must be time to call for a blogger's ethics panel. No irony there, eh? It'd be simply funny if 4 million people weren't dumber for having read Joe Klein's gut check on FISA, than if they hadn't read anything about FISA at all. I'm sure I'll dig down to outrage shortly, but I can't get Painton's flustered frustration out of my mental imagery just yet, and the image is hilarious.
-
CMosby
[Read the article: Demand answers from Time magazine]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for those links. Interesting reading at the NY Post (embedded in the Huffington Post link). So, if she's leaving anyway, and indications are she saw her position as a demotion of sorts, why her response to Jane Hamsher? It didn't make a lot of sense before, and it makes less now. What would it have cost Priscilla to simply be polite? Indicate that (for whatever reason) she needed to call Jane back regarding the matter, and then gather her wits if she was caught off guard?