Letters to the Editor
-
The problem is
buSHIT life is recess.
That's not ok if you have the most important job in the world.
-
Pick Flick
Tweety ran a clip of the movie "Election" a few weeks ago to show how HRC was incensed by anyone else running, when she was the smartest and hardest worker. That's what the press thinks of her.
-
It's unlikely to happen ...
... but if I were an editor and I knew one of my reporters was behaving in this manner, he or she would be in my office the next morning answering my 'WTF' question, endure a lengthy lecture about professional performance and courtesy -- even to politicians -- and then told in no uncertain terms that if this kind of childish behavior EVER happened again, that reporter would be reassigned to the midnight bodybag beat.
-
Umm Yea, I think you guys are missing the point
(Obama is surging, Edwards is too angry and jumped the shark, Hillary can recover from a loss, Romney can't, Huckabee is a loser, McCain is a great guy who is coming back)
So I guess Glenn is for Obama and McCain and against Edwards and Huckabee and neuteral on Hillary and Romney?
-
My point precisely
Actually, that's what triggered this. Up until now you've struck me as not being a supporter of Hillary, so I have to say that this article, which without any substantiation asserts a pro-Obama anti-Hillary bias in the press, (ok, the latter is substantiated if anecdotally and, even in that, not altogether compellingly), and appears in the midst of Salon campaign coverage that has had me rolling my eyes for weeks. Well, pardon me for jumping to conclusions, but I'm not paid for this and therefore fairness and discipline is a grace that I can't always afford. At least you'll have to give me credit for allowing that the entry might be genuine ;)
-
McCain and his 'base'
You'll recall that perhaps a year ago McCain was considered the natural front runner for the Republican party and Chris Matthews and other media figures openly refered to themselves - the press - as being McCain's "base".
McCain's entry in Wikipedia (scroll down to 2000 presidential campaign) states:
McCain was famously accessible to the press, using free media to compensate for his lack of funds;[94] as one reporter later recounted, "McCain talked all day long with reporters on his Straight Talk Express bus; he talked so much that sometimes he said things that he shouldn't have, and that's why the media loved him."
Of course this is exactly what you're addressing in this post.
Saying "things that he shouldn't have" pretty clearly implies that he was engaging in off color remarks, probably about other candidates, or even George Bush, and using foul language which he has a reputation for.
None of those things really amount to much among adults, but look at how the reporter expresses the press reaction to it; "and that's why the media loved him."
That's not an adult reaction. That's the reaction of a sophmore who's in the company of a sports coach or vice principle for an extended period during which the authority figure relaxes his demeanor and slips out of his professional persona. It's a huge deal if your 12 years old, but the fact that these adult 'journalists' are still reacting within this subordinate/authority figure dynamic is disasterous for the public and really pathetic for them personally.
If I recall correctly the press went on to throw him a big birthday party in 2004 (or he threw it for himself and invited the press) where he sat on stage with some washed up comedian/musician and the press sang happy birthday to him. These are the kinds of things I and many, many other people couldn't even bring ourselves to do in high school.
And of course this leads directly to how the candidates narratives are put forth and sold by the press.
I hope you don't mind if I indulge myself here with my penchant for limerick:
There are some candidates' traits pundits stress,
As an indicative means to assess,
The strenght of character forged;
Or - in the case of King George,
Character forgery done by the press.
-
But, why would they bother to talk to her?
It's not like it's their job or anything.
Seriously, there are so many bad journalists running around the US right now, I'm stunned when I see someone just doign their job, let alone someone exceptional.
-
Candy Crowley
Is insanely jealous because that ugly little elf Kucinich's (first) wife is a six foot tall obviously intelligent knockout and she ain't.
Jealousy is possibly the most destructive emotion there is.. I hope it eats that rhymes-with-witch's heart out.
-
bucky1 you need to pay better attention:
You have been consistently ant-war, and I appreciate all your hard work. I would ask that you consider doing a post on what you would expect in the area of foreign policy from Mrs. Clinton if she were to be elected. We can not just expect her to be a carbon copy of Bill, no more than Jr. Bush was a carbon copy of his dad.
This column was not about foreign policy. It was about how the press covers the candidates.
As long as I have been reading Glenn's work, I haven't seen him get into the business of predicting or channeling or mind-reading politicians. Or pundits. He is all about what they said and did and wrote. That's why I read here and not someone like Dowd or the other pundit hacks that this column was about.
If he were to respond to your request, my guess is that he would say he agrees he does not like the pattern so far (nor do I as a HRC supporter) but unless he thinks of something orignal to add, he won't bother writing about it.
-
Glenn, we love you...
but unfortunately, you're getting the spillover of bad Salon juju that has been continually generated -- and continues to be just this week -- by your editor Joan Walsh, in her anti-Obama, pro-Hillary shilling campaign.
Unfortunately, the laughable claims of impartiality on Joan's part have made many of us understandably suspicious. Frankly, there have sometimes seemed to be a quota of anti-Obama/pro-Hillary articles at Salon, with Joan and her blog at the helm.
I give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you write it like you saw it. Because I think you've proven time and again that you have integrity.
But do realize that some of the company you keep do not enjoy that same trust from many Salon readers, including some of us long-time "former" subscribers. I did put my money where my mouth is and did NOT ante up -- after YEARS as a subscriber -- as long as Camille Paglia column, Debra Dickinson articles, and the anti-Obama/pro-Hillary campaign were going to remain.
I trust you to be one of the only unbiased sources of political coverage -- well, you are biased...toward telling the TRUTH!