- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
First, I'd like to clarify my earlier comments that Farhad focused too much on the question of whether Kennedy proved the election was stolen, and not enough on the vote fraud that did occur. Upon reflection, I maintain that those are the right priorities, but it's Kennedy who chose to frame the issue on a stolen election rather than vote fraud.
It's understandable that Farhad answered Kennedy's article on its own terms.
I hope Salon will do more to report the fraud that did occur, however.
Now for the letters:
"The inherent hypocrisy highlighted by the differing responses to these two articles by Mr. Kennedy [the other on mercury in a vaccination - Craig234] is symptomatic of the overall decline in quality here at Salon. After subscribing since the inception of memberships, I have allowed mine to lapse and I won't be renewing it."
Salon went to great lengths to publish the 'other side' of the debate on the issue when criticism arose of the Kennedy article it co-published. In fact, I have never seen any publisher, in print or online, go to nearly the lengths that Salon did on that story to supply the readers with resources to see both sides and reach their own conclusion.
That is the model I'd use for any publication to do the most it can to provide both sides.
So clearly, I think that the letter writer's claim that Salon went easy on RFK, Jr. in the earlier article is the opposite of what happened. On this issue, I think the last is yet to be heard, though, on the issue of election fraud, not only for the historical accuracy of 2004, but because the threat remains for future elections.
"Mark Crispin Miller says the election was stolen, and seems to document it; Manjoo says Nuh Uh.
Kennedy says the election was stolen, and seems to document it; Manjoo says Nuh Uh.
Surely you have another voice we can hear from? I tend to skip Manjoo's writings as not much different from what I can find in the mainstream. Can you not find another viewpoint than this apparently reflexive naysayer?"
To the first point, I had the benefit of seeing Mark Crispin Miller speak on his views at the time. I have to say, I went looking for substance to back up the claims, and found nothing but pathos and no substance. He could talk about proof, and talk about how he offered proof, and talk about critics saying he didn't offer proof.
And then he said thanks for coming, without having offered the substance I think was needed.
Form your own opinion; his speech is available online at www.commonwealthclub.com archives, free.
As for the comment that Farhad's comments are the same as in mainstream media - I disagree. The conclusion may be the same, but the way it was reached and explained is vastly different. I do not see any substantive coverage, much less analysis and rebuttal, of RFK's piece.
If I want a quality analysis of RFK's article, and I do, I know nowhere else to go BUT Salon and Farhad.
"You criticize this by pointing out that Republicans as well as Democrats were turned away in equal numbers. Seriously, do you really not understand this one? In 2004, Democrats in Ohio were out-registering Republicans by an astonishing ratio, so turning away *all newly registered voters* (regardless of party) greatly advantaged the Republican candidate."
Farhad quoted the Conyers report's own claim that the impact was equal to both parties. And he appropriately criticizes RFK, Jr. for not pointing that out in his article.
You are arguing here against the accuracy of the claim - which is something you should take up with its source, the Conyers investigators; you are missing the point, that if RFK, Jr. is going to cite the Conyers report on this issue, it's wrong for him to use the info to imply the impact was mostly against democrats and fail to mention his source's conclusion that the impact was actually equal to the parties. Farhad is critiquing Kennedy's writing there, for cherry picking its quotes.
"A case in point is this current article by Farhad Manjoo, which is something I'd expect to read over at National Review Online or Townhall.com. Manjoo is a known quantity at Salon, and his apparent biases on this particular issue make him more suited to, say, Fox News than Salon...
Will Walsh do the right thing here? ...a website that seems to be morphing into another hollow neocon-validating parody, yet another formerly liberal voice now echoing the latest Karl Rove-approved talking points. You may find your takers for such a product, Ms. Walsh, but don't ask me to continue to pay for it."
This is absurd. Let's get it straight - the truth comes before partisanship. If the facts supported the right wing's views, the right thing would be for us to become right-wingers. (They don't.)
The question is, are Farhad's arguments correct? You are judging them only by the measure of whether they agree with your politics, and demanding that he be sentenced to publish in right-wing rags for violating your politics whether or not his statements are true. That's not good, nor American, nor progressive, nor rational.
You ask, will Walsh do the right thing here? By which you mean listen to the subscribers who are complaining about the conclusion Farhad reaches, and get someone else to say something different.
The right thing is what Walsh did: to follow the pursuit of the truth, courageously, even against the 'easy way out' of pandering to readers' politics - a short term gain and a long term corruption and loss to everyone.
Even if Farhad turned out to be wrong, the pursuit of the truth above the desired result is the 'right' thing.
