- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I seem to recall reading in Salon.com last week that any claims regarding specific books that Palin was trying to ban were bogus. Now Salon is saying otherwise, but I haven't heard any evidence to support that claim except the word of Bess, a man who obviously has a bone to pick with the vice presidential candidate. Nevertheless, this claim seems to be taken as something more reliable than just the worthless hearsay that it is.
Why is that? Is it because this new information supports Salon's view that Palin is dangerous?
I don't want republican's in the Whitehouse anymore than the rest of Salon's readership, but please; give us ammunition that we can actually use. This one-sided reporting only benefits those on the right seeking examples of the 'liberal media' in action.
In a pinch, I have often relied on Salon for my morning dose of political news. And I have often found myself disappointed by reporting like this. I'm sure you guys can do better.
Can't you?
