Letters to the Editor
-
the importance of being well dressed
The Chairman of Enron. The President. The Vice-President. Rush Limbaugh. Ann Coulter. What do they have in common?
Well, they are all well dressed.
This seems to be Koppelman (and Salon's) definition of legitimacy.
What about the homeless, drug addicted, disabled, veterans who have been driven crazy by war and war making...are these people to be despised?
Must you have enough income to get a great haircut, and look well put together to be taken seriously?
If you have given your life to fighting against injustice, and therefore do not have stock options, and the ability to purchase designer clothing (if you work for Salon, for example), does that make your opinion any less valid? Does that make your objection to the carnage in Iraq any less important?
Of course, every protest I have ever been to has a few narrow rigid fundamentalists of the left...(spartacists. trotskyites, whomever). They pale in significance to the influence of the rigid fundamentalists of the right who sit at the right hand of the President. No one pays any attention to them. They're not important except to allow mainstream journalists to find a good reason to dismiss anti-war protests.
Why DON'T you do some investigative journalism and find out what's happening on the "Left"? Why don't you read Rebecca Solnit? Why don't you cover Code Pink as it presents Sen. Clinton with symbols of her wishy washy stance on the war? Have you covered the protesters who are presenting certain members of Congress with a giant backbone? What about the organizers in Humboldt County, California who have succeeded in keeping Walmart out of their community and have passed a law that says corporations based outside of the community can't spend more than $250 to influence legislation or zoning?
You may think NOW is "off topic"...but many feminists define themselves as being by definition anti-war, anti-racist, and deeply troubled by Israel's destruction of Palestine.
I hate this cutesy, cynical, let's just write people off -- what ABOUT Jane Fonda? She has been targeted by the military for years...because she went to Hanoi and broadcast a speech for peace --- she's the constant target of stupid, sexist jokes -- yet she continues to keep doing good work.
OF COURSE the protests include many more mainstream people. MOST Americans now oppose the war. But who opposed the war before it began? Those who you despise -- the "professional protesters"...who rallied and protested in MILLIONS throughout the world, who despite your condescending treatment managed to pull off a coordinated WORLD WIDE protest... These are the people who said ALL ALONG that there was no reason to make war on Iraq, that there were no weapons of mass destruction..who was right?
Susan McGee
SusanGSMcGee@aol.com
-
More than a protest
Misinformation, lack of facts, and sound bites I can find on Fox News and CNN; from Salon I expect in-depth, dare I even say investigative, reporting. I have come to expect that mainstream media channels will not report in how many different ways U.S. citizens are being injured by the current administration, but when 70% of the population say they disagree with the war in Iraq and are ready for the troops to be brought home, I am greatly disappointed that Salon chooses not to look at the attempts that are being made to bring this about.
My husband and I have just returned from four days in Washington, D.C., and today was the first chance that I had to read Salon's reporting of the three days of activism in which hundreds of thousands took part. To my utter disbelief, I found only one article on Saturday's march that was concerned mainly with celebrities, “radical” elements, quotes on signs, and brief sound-bite interviews. Evidently, the one-page article didn't warrant a discussion of any of the real issues that prompted a half-million people from at least 48 states to spend their own time and money to gather in a show of true democracy. What about interviews with military families or veterans against the war -- both groups prominently evident at the march?
But aside from my disappointment at the coverage of Saturday's event was the fact that Salon seemed completely unaware that the march was only one event on the first of a three-day effort to show our congressional and senatorial representatives that public opinion has shifted, as evidenced by the changes reflected at the ballot box in November, 2006.
Allow me to mention a only a few of the stories which we as participants discovered and which one might assume a reporter would find noteworthy. Not only was the march filled with “first timers,” but in addition to the strong presence of Vietnam veterans, this rally included significant numbers of veterans from the Iraq War, also the Korean War and even a few WW II veterans. On Sunday, the meetings organized by United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) in preparation for Monday's lobbying efforts also demonstrated how widespread and mainstream the desire to stop the war and bring the troops home has become. Workshops and panel discussions expected to draw single-digit audiences instead crowded sixty or more persons into classrooms. During the afternoon plenary, when asked how many had ever lobbied their representatives before, a good number of hands were raised; but when asked for how many this was the first time, over twice as many hands went up. The UFPJ planners dreamed of having 1000 citizens and constituents lobbying members of Congress on Monday; instead 2000 walked the halls of the nation's legislative branches representing 47 states.
I understand that a news organization must make their stories entertaining as well as informative, but by accenting the carnival aspect of the protest (which any large heterogeneous gathering of people will produce), important stories were missed which serves neither the nation nor Salon.