Read other letters about this article

• Monday, November 10, 2008 11:50 AM

  To Paul Ash

  To be fair, there was extra heat on this because you're like the 1,412th person to post a comment of the form "instead of posting about this, why don't you post about this other thing, which I think is far more important."

  OK, thanks for being fair. But you're mischaracterizing my criticism. Greenwald DID post about the Rahm appointment, and in doing so, he just happened to post about a weirdly tangential, inconsequential part of it. I don't think my post was a "why doncha write about my pet peeve, the appointment of a rabid pro-Iraq war hawk", it was more like a "ok, you're going to write about the Emanuel appointment...and what's all this about F-bombs?"

  It was a criticism about WHAT Greenwald had to say about an important topic. Specifically, that he had gone off following a tangent instead of actually addressing the topic at hand. Maybe he gets a hundred such criticisms each day, but he chose to respond to mine, and did so inadequately with a flippant burst of sarcasm (in my opinion). Of course, he's under no obligation to be respectful or civil to his correspondents, but I sort of expected him to be. Incorrectly.

  I happen to think it's presumptuous to tell a writer what to write about. In my mind, that's not "criticism," it's more a kind of whining.

  Frankly, if we're "whining" when we write anything critical of Greenwald's topic selection, then I don't see the point of having open boards available at all. I'm a writer (of this letter, at least), and you're telling me I shouldn't have written any criticism of Greenwald's post. Does that make you "presumptuous" for deigning to disagree with what I chose to write? No, clearly not. It's called open discussion.

  —saburai Read saburai's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel