Krotos, you have it down 100%.

There have always been stores by and for women on Salon. The difference is that there used to be more "big deal" stories, and, as a general rule, a non-big-deal story wasn't the lead. Further, the lead was clearly intended to be important to people of both sexes and a range of ages.

Business development and marketing are what I do. I can almost guarantee you that around the time of the change in editorship, Salon had a meeting and made an explicit decision to market the site more heavily to women over 30 with higher education and higher incomes. Meanwhile, they are trying to cash-cow the guys but will definitely lose them over time.

The anonymous writer of the "not for male readers?" letter raises some interesting points:

or a website that supposedly isn't for male readers, Salon sure does have a lot of male letter-writers. Which implies to me that the males who write them just can't stop themselves from reading Salon, including the articles that are supposedly geared toward women.

Salon has lots of male subscribers that have up to a year left on their subscriptions. Many of them, including myself, are frustrated with the direction the site is taking and won't be renewing if that vector doesn't change.

So...if a website publishes occasional stories that appeal more to women, but only "every (other) week," does that mean that all the other articles are geared towards men?

If Salon started publishing Spike TV- or Maxim-style stories geared to young males and made them the lead every other weak, they'd have the female readership in a rage, and justifiably so. Salon used to have a smart, upscale, unisex demographic (or so it seemed to me as a male reader).

Features for men (or at least not specifically for women) include King Kaufman, War Room, How the World Works, Audiofile, The Daou Report, and every other article on the main page. Now. Do you see a bunch of whiny letters from women on here, saying "Oh, woe is me, the entire site isn't specifically intended to appeal to me! I want my money back!" No - because somehow, female readers manage to enjoy even stuff that isn't specifically intended to be girly.

The paranthetical "at least not specifically for women" makes all the difference. Salon now has unisex regular columns combined with a preponderance of articles targeted at the demographic I described.

I don't understand why men need for everything to be for them. Fellas, the world has all been "for you," pretty much forever. Most of your elected leaders are men, most of the writers on this site are men, most of the articles on here are about men, most of the AP stories on the left of the main page are also about men, and yet you still have to whine, whine, whine just because there is one story at the top of the page, on a weekend, that may appeal more to women. Oh, boo hoo. Get over it.

Yes, well, "getting over it" will mean not re-upping. Which is probably what Salon expects to happen, anyway. But beyond that, I'm puzzled by your logic. Women have had their "own" books and magazines and entertainments for a 100 years or more. I think the men here are frustrated to see a great on-line magazine lose its stature and tune them out.

I've got to see this one.

BTW, why can't we post comments about Cary's column any more. Perhaps the interface is broken?

But this does look like a good movie.

if we make this thing a monument to America's jumping the shark under the Bush administration, it will be worth every penny.

Good article (eom)

this truly suct.

Great piece.

I feel bad for Mrs. Edwards and wish her the best. But dude's as faux as it gets. Give it a break, JJ.

Sounds good. I also think...

1. No anonymous.

2. I liked one poster's idea for a "Premium Subscriber Only" filter.

Thanks for the good work, Joan.

This was perhaps the most confusing thing Sharpton said during the whole thing (overall, his debating was extremely lucid, clear, and skillful). It just seems like a statement that wasn't made very well, but I couldn't really see any bigoted or malicious intent.

All of these books by atheists say the same thing, and Salon appears to feel compelled to do a story on them every time they come out.

"We've evolved to believe in God." OK, I get it. But where's the insight? Where's the "ah hah!" moment that comes from discovery? There isn't any.

Sheldrake's experiments have been replicated, but of course the atheists just keep on ignoring them. Worse, they imply that they're just quirky one-offs; that's a lie.

It's getting to be like the cover story Time runs every couple of years: "Who was the real Jesus?"

I've watched every episode of SG and I don't think HH captures the vibe at all. It's really a quite interesting show with much of the typical reality TV Sturm und Drang removed.

Mr. Yount,

Since you're the union leader of virtuous employees, it sounds like it's time for you lead them and start your own newspaper dedicated to quality reporting.

Otherwise it is just sentimentality for the WSJ brand, which has been tarnished beyond repair by Lucky Duckie-style wingnut frothings.

Best of luck!

MLR

BigMedia is going to exclude itself from the medium of the future? So that only amateur art remains viable and their empire crumbles to irrelevance?

Bring it on.