This was, for many I suppose, a fair and interesting OpEd on Gore, but not a movie review.

Since I think she has a the best perspective on the difference, any chance of getting Stephanie Z to do the latter.

I am another Salon reader who is disappointed by this review of "An Inconvenient Truth."

I just saw the film last night. My main disappointment is that the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" --and more broadly the issue of global warming -- are not being given a place of greater prominence in Salon's hiearchy of issues. Salon should have relentless coverage as it has with Abu Grahib. The movie and the issue of global warming should be given frequent, thoughtful coverage.

Worse than the smarmy disparagement of Gore by a self-righteous Nader no-compromiser reviewer is the more serious misplacement of this problem in the hierarchy of issues in the Salon world. Salon gives too much "ink" to tabloid-like topics such as will-or-wont-Rove-be-indicted. That's an example of a topic that I find a petty preoccupation. It is short sighted in a way that is typical of young people. I don't know, maybe much of the Salon staff is young and just needs more life experience to better recognize what is historically important.

I hope that as other Salon readers see this film, they will come looking for the review--as I did--and pile on to this letter thread with more encouragement to the Salon editors to move the global warming issue up the flagpole.

Global warming is more important than the outing of Valerie Plame, in my opinion, and WAR ROOM and Salon columnists in general ought to reexamine their fixations. So much of Salon is reactive --- reacting to the news and to the rest of the media. At least in the case of Salon's Abu Grahib coverage there was an effort to contribute something to the issue, even some risk taking. It is not enough to just rant and rave about the world so much. Come on folks -- this is new media, let's make something of it!

I agree that Salon and Mr. O'Hehir seem not to want to recognize that a media pile on occurred in 2000 against Al Gore and against Dean and Kerry in 2004. And now the media is gearing up once again to pile on Hillary Clinton or any other hapless Democratic nominee in 2008.

One incident from 2000 that I still remember is Gwen Ifill of PBS's 'Washington Week in Review' openly laughing on the air because Al Gore in one of the debates was so 'wonky' as to mention the name of a bill that was currently being considered in the House of Representatives. As I recall, she rolled her eyes and called it 'inside baseball' or some such.

Unfortunately, bills in Congress often have something important to do with my life; whether Al Gore is 'wonky,' 'portly,' or 'strange' really doesn't. How can a supposedly respectable journalist get away with snickering on tv at a presidential candidate because, gosh, he just happened to know something about a bill in Congress? How is that she did not lose her job immediately?

The answer is that rest of the media didn't call her out on it. And they didn't call her out on it probably because many members of the media would like to be tv biggies like Gwen Ifill themselves someday and making a fuss about how Gwen Ifill doesn't do her job isn't likely to help in that endeavor.

The suspicion here is that Salon doesn't like to call out the media on their errors because Salon writers would also like to become media biggies themselves--just as former Salon reporter Jake Tapper, now on ABC News, did.

Unfortunately, going after our very corrupt and dense media is exactly what has to be done. Good reporters these days MUST be willing to risk their careers by going after powerful media personalities--that is, if they want to write the truth.

And it's not just Fox News, it's all of it, PBS included.

"Notoriously awkward politician"

Will you "pundits" never stop echoing the party line?

No wonder "the media" is no longer respected. I read this article assuming it was a critique of the documentary film. But the film took second place to politics.

I don't know who you are, Mr. O'Hehir, or whom you represent, but it's more of the "same old same old". Since I see no editorial credit.

I wonder how you would describe George W Bush ? Never mind..I'll do a bit of research to find out who you are and what sort of belief system your's is.

Perhaps you're no more a journalist than the infamous Mr. Gannon.

"Notoriously awkward" or

"Notoriously stupid" ? Which do you choose?

Elizabeth Bumiller wrote this in today's NYT:

"Mr. Bush's Texas twang intensifies and recedes depending on the setting."

How different the response would have been to O'Hehir's unconscious (and now unrepetent) dissing of Al Gore if he'd said something similar.

Or, imagine the response if Bumiller had written

"Bush's slightly put-on Texas accent (remember, he went to Ivy League schools and his family is from New England)".

Salomea, if you want to do more, one possibility is to volunteer with a grass roots campaign to get Gore elected in 2008, at AlGore.org.

Housekeeping: in my previous letter, posted two or three slots below, I said "unrecalcitrant" when clearly I meant "recalcitrant." I plead sleep deprivation.

Addendum to previous letter to Salon writers: I went back and read the link to the author's previous November 2000 Nader apologist piece linked in his recent Cannes review. Then, as now, he appears to be remarkably uninformed about politics and its relation to the MSM. The idea that Nader exhibited more integrity than Gore in 2000 is false cliche. Ms. Walsh states that the author is one of Salon's "fairest writers." I would re-check Snow White's mirror. I don't think he is even in the running at this point.

Once again, unless you can acknowledge the pernicious role of the MSM in 2000, your intellectual honesty is in question. If you are skeptical about this statement, I suggest reading the dailyhowler.com archives, which has exhaustive particulars and analysis of this phenomenon. Unfortunately, a much higher level of sophistication on the subject has been exhibited by the readers than the writers.