Letters to the Editor
AncientAssyrian
Published Letters: 753 Editor's Choice: 54
-
@Anonymous -- It Would be Fine if Salon Would Just ADMIT Its Allegiances
[Read the article: On to New Hampshire]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The problem, anonymous, is that while Salon is made up of, as you say, "news editors or writers or journalists and they give you the news as they see it (i.e. - in their opinion)" -- they are claiming to be covering the Democrat field with impartiality.
Time and again, Joan and others at Salon claim to have no candidate allegiance, and then they go on to write passive-aggressive articles that attack the other candidates, bolstering (or trying to make excuses for) Hillary, or that exaggerate/misrepresent issues in favor of Hillary Clinton.
The fact is, they DO have a candidate allegiance, and that is fine. We all do. I'm for Obama. But I am not a magazine claiming to be an impartial source of political news on the Democratic race.
But that's exactly what Salon and its writers claim. They claim impartiality, and then they hack hack hack away at Obama and Edwards and anyone that isn't Hillary Clinton, and even if they dare to write anything that isn't laudatory to Hillary or is positive about the others, they couch it by passive aggressively tucking in hordes of negative talking points. And it's not just in the political articles, it's in the blog posts, and Broadsheet posts, and even technology pieces -- hack hack hacking away at anyone and anything that isn't helping Hillary.
And let's not forget, nothing gets published in a magazine without the editor's giving the ok. And Salon's Editor Joan Walsh published and gave the okay to the Debra Dickerson piece saying Obama wasn't really African-American, and the one from Scherer suggesting that Obama was the "female" in the Clinton/Obama matchup, and a hack job on Michelle Obama, and so on, and so on, and so many other articles attacking Obama that I'd need pages and whole lot more than 1000 words to list them all.
So far, Sidney Blumenthal is the only Salon staffer to have the integrity to publicly announce his candidate allegiance when he left Salon to work as an adviser to Hillary Clinton.
-
@David Terry, My Man Godfrey, Arvin Hill
[Read the article: On to New Hampshire]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]From your lips to Joan's ear... Thx for speaking the truth, all of you.
And Arvin Hill, you're right. Joan's skirting around the issue, failing to speak the truth about her own aims and allegiances here at Salon, her stonewalling on something as simple as the question of her political affiliations, and her outright inability to ever admit errors in fact or judgment in her own work or the work of her staff -- well, she's PERFECT for an HRC administration.
She's probably spiffing up her resume for the transition team right this minute, and is ready to zap it on over to Sidney Blumenthal as soon as the moment is right.
-
Thanks...and No Thanks for the Right-Wing Watercarrying, Carol
[Read the article: Barack Obama and his mama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you...for at least being willing to come out and admit whether you are or aren't a Hillary supporter. It's something your colleagues appear pathologically unable to do.
But no thanks for your absurd statement: "I hardly thought it was a controversial assertion that Hillary was an obvious target."
Media Matters figured it out long ago. Why couldn't you?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200708220010
If you "hardly thought it was controversial," then you have been gorging on a steady diet of "The claws coming out against Hillary" stories from Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the other Fox and right-wing media types. Because THOSE are the media who jumped in and attempted to gain political capital by making this NON-story into a trumped up "controversy."
Nearly all other non-partisan media read the ENTIRE quote, DIDN'T have some unstated agenda, and didn't jump on the "Let's Swiftboat Obama" bandwagon by making the comment into a fake story. Except you, it appears?
So, you're saying that you actually believe that it was a legitimate controversy.
That's really telling, Carol. Not to mention pathetic.
Maybe you don't support Clinton, but if that's your explanation, and that's what you know, then we have to assume that you are not savvy when it comes to media/politics, are out to get Obama, actually believe people like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc., and/or you're a Republican.
But if YOUR idea of feminism is trashing Michelle Obama based on a discredited right-wing/trumped-up/fake controversy, then, Carol, YES, not only is it true that you ARE swiftboating Obama, but you ARE watercarrying for the RIGHT WING, and you are doing NO service to women.
Your post is a disgrace!
What's next from you?
"I hardly thought it was a controversial assertion...that Hillary Clinton was having an affair with Vince Foster and had him killed?"
"I hardly though it was a controversial assertion...that John Kerry's wife Teresa was an emasculating bitch.
"I hardly thought it was a controversial assertion...that Castro had endorsed Obama"
Hey, who needs Fox News, Drudge and Limbaugh when we have Carol Lloyd's cutting-edge coverage of politics?
-
Oh Joan, you passive-aggressive Clinton loyalist, you!
[Read the article: The debate through the eyes of Clinton loyalists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why is it no surprise to me that the only Obama fan you choose to mention was one who wouldn't give her name, wouldn't admit it publicly, and was in the restroom?
You never disappoint in your ability to cover anything or anyone related to this campaign and STILL manage to work in one of your now trademarked passive-aggressive potshots at Obama.
The metaphorical point of your comment isn't lost on the many Salon readers who are on to your game.