Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
AncientAssyrian
Published Letters: 769 Editor's Choice: 54
Semiodd -- sad to say, but Salon is, for the most part, NOT journalism.
Salon is collection of op-ed/talking head/pundit/opinion blogs.
Joan is not a journalist, she's a blogger. Conason is clearly not a journalist -- he's also a blogger.
War room's Koppelman? Blogger.
Broadsheet? It's a blog, written by bloggers.
Even Greenwald's a blogger, but I think he falls much more into the "investigative reporter" category, and he tends to research his stories fairly intensively.
I'm not suggesting that blogger is an epithet -- there's certainly a place for blogs, and they can be very interesting, entertaining, etc.
I know you know the difference -- but everyone else -- let's not confuse blogging with actual journalism.
When research, verification and sources are replaced with "I've talked to people who say" and "all those Obamabots are making me think that" and "most would agree" and "as an impartial journalist, I think..." -- then it's blogging. Nothing else.
In a newspaper, it would be on the "OP-ED" or Editorial page, and labeled as such.
You don't have editors or columnist of most newspaper or newsmagazines writing self-interested opinion pieces, and passing them off as "impartial" news pieces, much less putting them on the cover.
Those are Editorials or Op-Eds...period.
That's the problem with Salon.
Occasionally Shapiro and Madden and another writer here or there "try" to write a journalistic news piece, and occasionally they succeed. And Glenn G. does break some stories that I would say fall into the News journalism category.
But most of the time, there is no "news" here at Salon. It's op-eds, editorials and linking with commentary to other sites -- all disguised to look like news. But they are not news.
Salon is a collection of opinion blogs.
And it doesn't matter whether they're presented in Salon's "blog" visual format (i.e., Joan's blog), or if it's showing up as a bylined "article." Because it's still opinion blogging, and it's not news.
That's why it's so confusing for many, and irritating for some of us who don't agree with Joan's or Joe's "news coverage" (aka, self-interested opinions/editorials/commentary) about the primary, Hillary and Obama, for example.
Because you have some people who read Salon, and think that when they see a headline like "Did Sidney Blumenthal cross the line?" or " Will Obama's debate stumble hurt him?" from Joan Walsh, that they are about to read news.
And then they BELIEVE the things they read, as if they were reading a newspaper story -- they approach it with a measure of trust, expecting to be reading an edited, reviewed, researched, sourced and vetted "TRUE" news story.
But they are not. They are about to hear opinion. And that opinion can be as biased, or as unresearched, or as opinionated, or as partisan, as the author wants it to be.
Joe, Joan, etc. -- You are bloggers. You are "advocacy media." You are no different than Arianna Huffington, or Kos, or Fox News for that matter. There is a place for you folks, certainly, as entertainers, pundits, and as clearinghouses of certain types of information for certain types of audiences, and as places for likeminded people to gather to communicate with each other.
But make no mistake.
You are not journalists in the sense that you'd like to be, and you're not impartial, you're not "fair," or balanced.
It's not 1988 anymore here with Glenn Greenwald...but as for the rest of Salon's staff and contributors...they're listening to their George Michael and Duran Duran albums, reading "The Art of War," and grooving on old episodes of Golden Girls and Cheers.
Yes, Glenn, the tactics that the GOP perfected in 1988, and to which the media are addicted, are working again in 2008 to render actual issues yet again irrelevant.
Otherwise, why would the Pentagon Generals story get so little play? Why would Hagee's psycho-minister Youtube clips NOT be front and center on every news program for months? Why would Hillary's threats to obliterate Iran be overlooked, in favor of whether or not she has "testicular fortitude?"
Sadly, your question has already been answered.
The question, to me, is, is there anything the general public can DO to change this from the grassroots up?
Because those of us who do not have blogs in Salon or Huffington Post, who are not friends of Sidney Blumenthal, who don't appear on Hardball, who are not "Kos" or George Clooney -- what platform do we have? All each of us has is one dinky vote (which may or may not count, depending on whether we're voting on one of those Diebold machines), and whatever money and time we can dedicate.
We have our $2300 we can contribute. We have time to give to candidates to volunteer. We can post on blogs.
But I can give all the money in the world to campaigns and various groups -- that is not going to change the way the media is crafting this election. It's not going to change the focus from Reverend Wright to WHAT is Right for America.
But truly, many of us are in despair. What's the next step for us? Glenn, are there practical things you see the average Jane or Joe being able to do to change this, or is it hopeless?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
