- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
At the risk of "piling on" (I already posted a fairly blistering response to Manjoo at 3:40 a.m. Sunday morning), I've just finished visiting three websites (dailykos, Mercury Rising and Mark Crispin Miller's blog) that are specifically addressing Manjoo's article and all 3 have pretty thoroughly debunked what Manjoo has to say.
In fact, Mark Crispin Miller is referring to Manjoo's article as a "hatchet job" and there's also a clear implication in some of the other things I've read outside of Salon that Manjoo is willfully and very deliberately distorting some of his facts.
Given the above and the number of posts here at Salon, isn't it incumbent on Salon to review the facts presented by Farhad Manjoo and review what the people have to say who are rebutting his version of the facts? If it turns out that Manjoo's article is substantially correct then I think you owe it to him to publicly stand behind him and to publish the sources you used to verify his facts. If, on the other hand, the people disputing Manjoo's conclusions are substantially correct then I think you need to decide if Manjoo's article was a deliberate hatchet job or simply the result of careless, lazy reporting. Either way, that would need to be publicly acknowedged by you as well, Salon, or you stand to lose most if not all of your credibility.
As for me, I'm not just angry about the tone and substance of Manjoo's article anymore, now I'm also angry about the number of posters who say they're quitting Salon. I obviously don't have the time to verify this, but I have to assume that some, most or all of them regularly post their thoughts, ideas and opinions here and I'm angry at what we'll ALL be losing if and when they go.
So how about stepping up to the plate, Salon (and on the front page, please ... not buried in this forum that's already up to 37 pages.)
