Letters to the Editor
Steve1us
Published Letters: 102
-
Joan Walsh and Hillary - sisters in deception
[Read the article: Why John Edwards hasn't endorsed Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joan must spend ALL of her time trying to find any piece anywhere that rips Obama, and includes a shot at Clinton, just to keep the charade going - at least in her own mind. Ancient Assyrian pretty much nailed Joan Walsh on every point - none of which she will ever answer as any honest journalist with integrity would do - so I won't repeat those. What is so bizarre about Walsh's devolution into a journalistic joke these past few weeks is how much it parallels Hillary's own descent. Basically I have come to see that Ms. Walsh isn't only devoted to Hillary - she is pathologically mimicking Hillary's methods - pretend, deceive and lie to appeal to one group while actually doing the bidding of another. Such as Clinton's appeal to working-class people even though the whole Rasion d'etre for her and Bill is based on their the very well-detailed switch from the populism of his first term as governor to their present status as total shills for big corpora. All of their moves (including her Iraq war vote) are craven ploys for more political power, and writers have documented Hillary's penchant for making things up for political purposes over the years. Yet Ms. Walsh will ignore all of the mountains of evidence about her idol and ignore the testimony of hundreds of highly credible people - from people who know him like his fellow law school professors (one of whom wrote an excellent piece recently in the Chicago Tribune), to preeminent historian James McPherson, to fellow senators who vette Obama. Is Obama perfect or going to solve all of our problems? No and neither is anyone else. But it is funny that the ONLY thing ever worth citing in everything Walsh has written are items which include negatives about Obama - oh but then she always includes some sort of faux caveat to show she's "fair". To anyone who isn't sure, go back and read her posts about Obama. When I read them I can't decide which is worse - the mendacity or Joan's self-delusional that she is fooling her readers.
-
@dog-walker
[Read the article: Why John Edwards hasn't endorsed Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No, dog-walker, if you read what people actually write, the attacks on Joan Walsh don't represent a "harbinger" or anything other than what she is rightly being criticized for: dishonestly promoting Hillary while pretending to be fair. EVERYTHING Joan writes (and every TV appearance I've seen) has some sort of negative take on Obama, all the while excusing anything that sheds a negative light on Hillary. I don't care if Joan Walsh is for Hillary, but she should do what I was taught in journalism school: endorse a candidate openly then try to be fair to both candidates in your coverage. This under-the-radar campaign of hers is yellow journalism. Another poster, Dave@Davis, leveled the same criticism as you and then went back and reread Joan's posts as a whole. He came back with the conclusion that our take on Joan Walsh was correct. I urge you and others who feel this way to do the same and see if you can still, honestly, say that Joan Walsh is being fair as she claims.
-
@dataguyx
[Read the article: Why John Edwards hasn't endorsed Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]you haven't been paying attention:
"Joan's the editor, I believe. This is an opinion column, not a news column. Objectivity is not required.
It's stupid to try to contact the board. Besides that, she isn't all that biased."
Joan IS all that biased and anyone reading her posts with an open mind can see it;
objectivity IS required when you (a, are claiming as Joan is that she is impartial and (b, are running an under-the-radar campaign for one candidate over the other by selecting stories to post in War Room or what topics to cover in her commentaries that are skewed in one direction. Only recently when Salon started getting called out for its bias has War Room started evening it up. Joan Walsh can have any opinion she wants; what is not right is to skew the coverage one way, deny that you are doing so, and then call Obama supporters names (as she has done), lie on TV about Salon's coverage (as she did on CNN by saying that Salon was "all over" the Bosnia lie when a simple search proved that was untrue - if you want to see "all over" coverage also do a search for the Wright story.
The board should be contacted; as a former journalist I have been appalled by Walsh's tactics. She belongs on Fox, not any responsible news outlet.
-
@jebldmn
[Read the article: Why John Edwards hasn't endorsed Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You are SO wrong about the Bosnia story and Salon and it's easy enough to disprove your point. Do a simple search on the Salon site: it turns up 3 (three) War Room briefs on Clinton's lie: two the week before that simply quoted other stories and one the week when it all broke - AFTER they started getting hammered by people for not covering the story. And AFTER Joan Walsh went on CNN and lied and said they were ALL OVER it. If you want to see what ALL OVER truly means, do another search for the Wright story - Joan mentions it endlessly, other articles are written as well as War Room briefs. The facts about Walsh an Salon are there if people will take the time to look.