Letters to the Editor
-
Wow, a non-response and poor use of video.
I feel ripped off. This appears to be an ad for the original article and current.com rather than making any actual new points. It certainly isn't a response to the controversey.
I may be critical of Traister's movie criticism, but she's a good writer and interviewer. The initial interview was interesting and balanced, the furor in the letters worth skimming. This just mentioned these two things and said, "we're interested in what you think." Yes, and? I was interested in seeing how Traister might encapsulate and continue the discusion, but no.
Plus the doesn't amplify what little point she has. Nothing is gained by this format, except a certain discomfort for the author. The flat production values and awkward framing (here's a tip, having someone's boobs appear to rest on the bottom of the shot looks weird) are distracting.
As the rest of the discussion is in text and involves quoting and analyzing points, it's frustrating when there's a video instead of actual words.
Anyway, I'm annoyed - both by the bait and switch (she didn't actually respond to the angry letters, just quoted one and said other letters disagreed) and by the unnecessary use of video.