Letters to the Editor
Steve1us
Published Letters: 170 Editor's Choice: 1
-
@debaser ..The anger Hillary, Walsh and their supporters are generating ...
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]From Walsh's spitted out threat at Joe Madison last night on Hardball to this ridiculous victimiziation narrative the Clintons are currently spinning to your shot at Lilyrose, maybe it's time for the Clintonistas to take a look at the anger THEY are generating and ask why, rather than the usual simple-minded Obamabot name-calling that Walsh and most of the rest of you do. People get upset when they are not being treated fairly. For example, Clinton's flaunting of primary rules she agreed to and constant changing of the goalposts, or Walsh's consistent troll-like disengenuous posts that apologize for or minimize every Hillary misstep while trashing Obama (or pretending to "help" him by telling him what he's doing wrong) and then pretending to be impartial are trashing the sense of fair play we expect from figures who many of us used to respect but are now disgusted with. Walsh's myopic vie of this campaign, her deafness and name-calling would be bad enough in a regular poster but for an editor of a site like this, it is beyond unprofessional. That is why you see so much anger directed at her. And (in a tone she used at Joe Madison last night) Joan, yoooouuuu should think about what can happen when you demonize people.
-
How long before Walsh says she's not voting for Obama? Bets?
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Get ready. It's coming sooner than later and in that post she will write that now she JUST CAN'T support Obama, even though she has said MANY times (in her own mind if not in fact) she would vote for him. It will all be because of the way Hillary was treated by the Obama campaign and his awful supporters and ... blah, blah, blah, blah. Said it here first, Walsh will not be voting for Obama and like her other posts it will be nothing more than an exercise in disingenuous blame shifting denial.
-
Hillary and Walsh set feminism back 20 years
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]With their constant playing of the victim card .. for Hillary it's a crude political tactic, for Joan it's just pure emotion - which is totally unprofessional for someone who is supposed to be an editor. Joan's posts are not based on fact - like Hillary she takes whatever is convenient and overlooks anything that doesn't play into the narrative she has going on in her head (like the fact that people lie Olbermann weren't criticizing Clinton for wanting Obama to be killed but for bringing up the topic in the first place). But facts don't matter to her now. Walsh is operating on pure emotion, defending her sister in arms at all costs, raking Obama at every chance, and lying about it to herself and her readers in the process. She and Hillary are setting back the cause of having a female President by 20 years because they reinforce the stereotype of women as being victims and too emotional for high office. I write this for any rational person left at Salon or others sitting on the fence, knowing that Walsh has tuned out any criticism of Clinton or herself.
-
A few reporters did do theri job ..
[Read the article: CNN/MSNBC reporter: Corporate executives forced pro-Bush, pro-war narrative]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Spot-on as usual Glenn but it should be mentioned that reporters from McClatchey WERE doing their jobs during the run-up to the war - and, proving Gregory, Brokaw and all the MSM apologists wrong - poking holes in the administration's rush-to-war narrative. What the larger MSM entities do is serve as gatekeepers; they could have run with the McClatchey reporting or, God forbid, done some of the same on their own. But their lofty status and TV star salaries mitigate against rocking the boat, even though anyone who has a basic knowledge of our founding fathers hopes for a vibrant and questioning press knows that is not their mission in a democracy. Despite the current claims of the media being only a business, that is not the only role intended for the press as demonstrated by the concept of public control and licensing of the airways and reduced mailing costs and other governmental benefits for newspapers and magazines. If they only want to be a business with no responsibility to serving the public (which is de facto what they have become) then FCC licenses need to be challenged and revoked and government largesse needs to stop for print publications.
-
So ... Walsh's and Salon's "concerns" about Obama are overblown?
[Read the article: Top Dem pollster: Obama has "path to victory"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hmmm... some hard numbers that actually contradict the relentless stream of Walsh's "concern" posts about all of Obama's "problems" with the electorate. Of course Alex has to try and deflate the rationality of an actual pollster with an "it's still early yet" caveat about polls that does nothing to dispel Mellman's clear-headed argument based on actual results. Never fear. No doubt Walsh will soon write about how she's "concerned" that Obama is relying too much on actual election results and needs to follow Hillary's example and just look at certain polls, at certain times, as determined by a white lady who has much more insight that some young black guy.
-
@brainsch .. you've got the dynamic backwards
[Read the article: CNN/MSNBC reporter: Corporate executives forced pro-Bush, pro-war narrative]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The broadcast media is not the "twisted offspring of the state" but rather the opposite. It would be more accurate to say they have become what happens when the government oversight created (in broadcasting's case the Federal Radio Commission, later the FCC) is twisted by the desires of powerful corporate elites. With the advent of radio during a time when the Progressive and Socialist movements had some power, the airwaves were declared as belonging to the public. That's why you used to have things like the Fairness Doctrine and public service announcements and the original idea of broadcast licenses with some real teeth. With Friedmanomics, you got the combination of deregulation of broadcast media and concentration of ownership till you have what we have today: a broadcast media very much controlled by a powerful elite who in no way fulfill the obligations as envisioned in the 1920s or of a free press as envisioned by our founding fathers in the 1780s.