- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
OK, so it seems as if editors at Salon are trying to have more provocative content of late. It certainly needs more viewers/hits to stick around. Readers have commented before on the appropriateness of certain articles as lead stories and I must admit that some of the choices have made me question the integrity of the magazine. I often feel played. Is this like Edward R. Murrow's "paying the bills" situation in Good Night, And Good Luck, where we go from a hard-hitting cover story to a sensational or controversial article that generates buzz? I recall the "Mothers Who Think" column, which this would have been perfect for. Putting this as a lead article just doesn't make sense to me. Is it a horrible article? Do I want my 5 minutes back? No and no. I think we've all seen worse recently. Williams may be a tad narcissistic, but that seems to be the writing trend these days. I chose to read it and I could have ignored it. I wanted it (and other lead stories) to go further than it did, which I feel is my main quibble. Isn't that a reasonable expectation for a lead story? I think the editors at Salon should be taking the heat, not Mary.
