Letters to the Editor
-
Thank You
I've been a Salon reader for years (and a Broadsheet reader since it was started up), and it amazes and saddens me that Salon's writers have to put up with so many ad hominem attacks from idiots who (1) don't like a particular writer's ideas and/or (2) don't like the writer's gender. There are some writers Salon has published whom I simply don't relate to (such as Lamott), but why would anyone want to write a hateful, personal letter to someone who is just sharing her own ideas and experiences? A sane person might write a letter of disagreement on a particular point, but any person who reads Lamott and then feels the needs to sling mud has personal issues that have nothing to do with the writer.
In any case, I really enjoyed this article. While it saddens me to realize that Salon's writers have to endure so many ignorant insults in the course of doing their jobs, it is also inspiring to know that still you guys persist. Please keep in mind that for every idiot who writes a hateful letter, there are at least a hundred or a thousand or more who really loved the same article and simply didn't write to you about it. Instead, they renewed their subscription. Please keep up the good work.
-
Kudos to Joan Walsh
As a woman, I support Ms. Walsh's stance 100%. Way to go. I say there need to be more writers like Ms. Walsh.
Don't give up the fight.
-
Feministe, moderation, etc
Places like Feministe and Pandagon are places where women can feel safe and vent. They are not feminism advocacy sites. I'm hard pressed to name a place on the web that is feminist advocacy, rather than preaching to the choir. Many right-wing blogs and places like Feministe/Pandagon are simply for like-minded people to express agreement with each other and spread awareness of issues.
Speaking only to the converted is fine but it would be a shame for Salon to go down that road. I tend to think that much of the point of writing is to convince people of something. Reading a right-wing blog probably won't turn you right-wing and reading Feministe won't make you a feminist if you aren't one already. (And may do exactly the opposite)
Moderation almost never works, unless your intention is to foster a certain culture of group-think. Even simple post ratings systems are subject to the tyranny of the majority, and placing your faith in the majority is moronic.
If Salon is to adopt a moderation system, it should be a simple "ignore this poster" button. Voila, problem solved. If you personally don't like reading Ben Dover just ignore him, but don't make the rest of us. (Personally I enjoy Ben Dover as a purely gimmick poster, for God's sake his name is Ben Dover) If the choice is up to individual readers that is fine, but I don't like the idea of Sally Fred and Dan deciding what I get to read, or deciding which letters are better than others. A choice to read only subscriber comments would also make sense. It is when *your* preferences start dictating what *I* see that I have a huge problem.
I don't have a problem ignoring letters and letter writers I don't like. It isn't some shared problem, that's *your* problem, and what you don't like is not the same as what someone else doesn't like. Le Castor doesn't like letters from Sugarman, Sugarman doesn't like letters from Le Castor. Which one do we ban?
Once you play that game you are choosing sides in an ideaological debate and setting a groupthink tenor for the letters section.
---
As far as readers responding to other readers rather than to the original authors, that is to be expected. Salon could do two things to solve this problem:
1. Create threaded discussions for each article, separate from the letters page.
2. Have authors actually respond to letters.
When authors never respond, naturally the discussion becomes inbred. Salon can get 600 letter to the editor bashing Camille Paglia but they still have refused to even *acknowledge* that, let alone respond to it. The message is clear: we aren't reading the letters or if we are we really don't care about what they have to say. Given that, talking to other letter writers is both more interesting and more productive.
-
What Margalis says is absolutely true...
It's hard for me to get worked up about crap in your comment section when there is absolutely no evidence that the original author bothers to read the comment section.
-
You spoke truth to power!
I found this article very insightful and all the more meaningful because Walsh had previously always advocated for simply being more "thick-skinned" in tolerating such abuse. As an attorney, I cherish the ideals of free speech, but also recognize its necessary limitations. Just as defamation and speech that incites rioting are not protected under the First Amendment, so too speech that encourages, solicits, or advocates sexual assault and other violence against women should not be protected as "free speech." The whole principle of free speech was to protect our political and religious rights, not to create a free license for encouraging the degradation of and physical attacks on individuals, regardless of their gender. In so doing, these commentators cower below the thin veneer of anonymity and cling to their weak claims that their expressions inciting violence are merely metaphors, perhaps wondering if eventually, one of their comments will simply go to far and their IP address will be traced to reveal their identity. I would love to see some empirical studies of disparities of hate mail directed at female writers at other major online magazines. I wouldn't be surprised to see some return to 19th century protocol, when many great female writers wrote under masuline pseudonyms in order to simply be judged on the content of their work.
-
Echo chambers
Thomas, by the time you check back to this mess, this will probably be buried, but I hope you had a good day today.
I agree that Amanda Marcotte is free to do whatever she wishes, my statement was that I would hate to see the Salon forums become a misleading echo chamber in the manner that Marcotte has made hers.
Ah! Right. Now I understand. I would hate that, too. I do think, though, that Salon has erred on the opposite side. A lot of discussions here get bogged down in personal attacks and gender war soapboxes to the point where there is no room left for the original topic. This turns Salon's letters into a different kind of echo chamber, especially those responding to Cary Tennis and Broadsheet.
Some tweaking is probably in order, and it will be interesting to see how it works out in the end.