Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
AncientAssyrian
Published Letters: 769 Editor's Choice: 54
I've given up caring what Joan has to say about Obama because it's so tainted that it has little to add to the discourse. But the discussion of unbiased journalism, versus biased/oped blogging is screaming out for further comment.
Yes, Joan is an editor, and she is a blogger, and therefore, she is not expected to present unbiased, or "journalistic" coverage. The problem is: SOMEONE TELL JOAN.
Because she is under the severely mistaken impression that she IS unbiased, that she IS a journalist, and that she, along with Salon and the folks under her direction, ARE providing fair, reasonable, and rational coverage of the elections.
When clearly, they are not.
Those of us who are long-time Salon readers remember what an unbiased albeit liberal place Salon used to be. I was one of the first paid subscribers, and have been with Salon since the beginning. But Joan's indefensible and as yet still unexplained decisions to keep Camille Paglia on the payroll, to publish the noxious Debra Dickerson, to unrelentingly shill for Hillary Clinton, and to passive-aggressively try to take down Barack (can anyone say kaching, kaching as she manufactured ginned up controversies and obnoxious multipage articles from columnists solely here to inflate page views) -- all have left me cold, and the last time Salon wanted me to ante up for renewal, I quickly declined.
Joan is a blogger, and she is lucky to be in a position, at the helm of Salon, where anyone even cares to read what she thinks. If she had an independent blog or print column out there, I doubt that columns like this one would earn herself much of an audience, given that there's no particular insight, wisdom or take on things she's offering. Frankly, if she wasn't editor, and was merely a columnist at Salon, she'd not likely survive. She's a perfectly serviceable writer/reporter, but she lacks inspiration, or insight. She lacks the passion or intellect of Glenn Greenwald, for example, or the wit and intellect combined with media savvy of an Arianna Huffington.
Joan is a middle-aged woman who is intelligent, but not brilliant, capable but not extraordinary, able to manage an online magazine but not an especially inspiring or telegenic media presence, she can write, but she's not an especially great writer, she can report, but she's not an inspired reporter. She's a mother, with a daughter. She's middle of the road liberal, but not especially progressive, not the deepest thinker around, doesn't often think out of the box or want to challenge the mainstream, and she's clearly allied herself as a Baby boomer demographic, despite being in the younger end of that group.
Is there ANY surprise, then, that she desperately wants to...NEEDS to...see Hillary succeed?
This is more than just backing a candidate, or even hoping for a job...this is Joan's vindication of her journalistic career. She hasn't made the big bucks, or written a blockbuster book, or become a recognizable tv personality -- she's just toiled away, worked hard, and she's still waiting for the big payoff.
Just like her paradigm, Hillary Clinton -- for whom, even after being first lady, bestselling author, millionairess, and Senator, there is only one real "big payoff" she craves and covets.
Even if Joan has no links to the campaign, and no future White House job opportunities, election of Hillary is a vindication for Joan -- proof that the nose to the grindstone/uninspiring but tireless routine of a middle-aged woman gets rewarded.
And if Joan does in fact have some sort of inside track for a job, well, that's a cherry on top of this sundae. Because if Joan's got a quid pro quo in place, then Hillary getting elected may in fact mean Joan ALSO gets a big fat job in the administration, which in itself is major hot stuff to some people who think Washington/White House jobs are the ultimate in power/glamour. AND, such jobs are also often a door afterward -- the kind of door Joan might want to open to those big fat book deals and/or George Stephanopolos or Chris Matthews-like tv career.
Seriously -- to my fellow Obama supporters, and to Hillary supporters who still expect to see even-handed coverage -- don't expect unbiased or fair coverage of the elections now, or ever, from Salon, not while it's under the editorship of Joan Walsh. And certainly, don't expect Joan Walsh to be unbiased or fair in her coverage of Barack Obama. Because she can't. She just can't do it. It's simply not in her to do it.
If Olbermann had delivered this particular entreaty, I doubt it would be labeled a "tirade." Nor is it pro-Obama...come on Alex...you drinking too much of Joanie's koolaid or what?
I'm no fan of Chris Matthews, but he's got a perfectly valid point here.
This campaign is not, and should not be, about what Hillary Clinton wants, what Bill Clinton wants, whether she ends up disappointed or vindicated, whether she's "owed" this or not, what she thinks she's entitled to, or anything else about the Clinton political psychodrama.
It's about who will be the best president of the United States, who will lead us into the future.
If that's Hillary, fine, then let her show it, prove it, demonstrate it, be honest about it, not embellish it, and make her case for herself as a political leader, on her OWN record, in her own right.
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"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
