Reading Salon has been, for me, part of a study of my own philosophical conclusions and those of a group that are quite different in their thinking. I have told many of my friends that they should expand their understanding of the world around them by getting out of their comfort zones more often, Salon being generally way outside their comfort zones. I will admit, I often times find the reader feedback more interesting than the articles themselves, because I would rather see how a particular group responds to a given subject than what the author thinks. Authors are paid, and/or otherwise motivated to write in ways that may or may not obscure their true feelings. Responders are not.

That said, I would like to ask a question of the author.

"Now readers can post letters directly and they go up on the site unedited. (We do remove posts that contain gratuitous insults, ad hominem attacks, obscenities and the like.)"

When did this policy go into effect?

The first sentence supports my experience. The second does not. Due to my religious and political views, I have been called every profane and childish name imaginable (some actually think they have caused me bodily harm in doing so...). One respondent to a post I made said "In my dream so-and-so has a gun. He shoots you in the face, and it makes me smile". Obviously the ravings of a sick individual. To my knowledge, none of their posts were ever removed.

The author says that reader responses shape their views and even their behavior. I would add that this effect does not stop with the author.

"Several Salon contributors and staffers have complained to me that our open letters policy leaves the impression that our readership is much stupider and coarser than it really is."

How right they are. And so my study continues.

Best wishes,

Poco

lee siegel is a perfect example. the guy has made a career formulating his opinions and disseminating them via print. now, all of a sudden, a "silent majority" of people now have a voice and have taken the opportunity to challenge his convictions. it must be a bewildering new world for him. while i don't condone his fraudulent behavior, i kind of feel sorry for him.

journalists who are growing up in the era of web 2.0 aren't as surprised by the proliferating responses attached to their writing. in the end, i think this will force journalists, like kamiya says, to work harder before he or she hits that "publish" button.

Whether Salon retains it's current letters policy or not, it's been a bracing exercise in free speech, from the thoughtful to the moonbats. Love it. Thanks, Salon.

Now that it seems a little old-fashioned to bitch and moan that Salon is just a click-magnet publishing willfully shocking articles, its diplomat, Gary Kamiya (he makes Debra Dickerson's ideas comprehensible if not exactly palatable), gets assigned to write flame-bait. Oh. Good.

Maybe this little episode will at least get the poor innocents among us to stop writing letters that begin "Don't the editors even read these letters?" Of course they do, and they cackle with glee. No matter what, the magazine's women journalists will inevitably be made to be snarky (that's the only tone smart women can take, you see) and its nepotism hires will say stupid things and feel crushed, absolutely crushed, that anyone would call them on being dumb as dirt.

The only time I have seen any real response to these letters is a couple of weeks back when the headline to an illiterate Video Dog story got changed.

Prediction: Garrison Keillor's next post will get (1) a letter from a stalker who will call him "the Old Scout" and (2) a letter that calls him racist (and if you're racist, too, then it's fine to like him) and (3) a letter that ostentatiously trumpets the writer's youth and pities the old farts who think he's funny.

Yes! Require real names!

If only everyone on the "Left" were as "Right" as Poco.

Dude, it takes one to know one, ok? Ive seen your insane ramblings before. Its just too bad you dont realize that you're no different than the rest of us nuts.

Anyone who believes there is truly is such a thing as these fucking labels like "Left", or the "Right", liberals or conservatives deserve to spend their time "studying" those things.

Your study does nothing but further affirm your beliefs and annoy everyone else around you.

Ever worked a customer service job? I was thinking about Kamiya's piece this morning, how things have changed, and read people's letters, and one thing that's different is the move from product to process. The online world is full of ellipses -- sure, you have deadlines, but there's a difference between getting an article done for something online versus printing a book or a magazine. When that book or magazine (or broadcast) is done, it's done; it's out of your hands. You have to put up with what you made, warts and all.

And you're correspondingly insulated from what you created, too, because people will react to the product, and not to you so much. The book in their hands, the magazine article, the broadcast they recorded. Previously, the only way they could interact was to buy the product or not buy it (or to bother and write a letter that may or may not have been received).

But with online things, it's not so product-driven, because the product created is just floating out there, and can be revised, if necessary, in the blink of an eye, and it can vanish as quickly. And the writer is far more accessible. In a way, then, online writers are more like performers, versus lofty creators of a product. Write well, and you'll get fans (and hear from them); write poorly or about something people disagree with, and you'll certainly hear about it.

The quickened pace of feedback has suddenly involved the audience, akin to performing onstage and having the house lights come up and you can see everybody looking at you, instead of just darkness. Some performers will get flop-sweat, or stage fright. Some'll come to resent the audience for being there, or at least for being noisy.

But some'll thrive in that new medium, and come to relish the noisy clash of ideas.