So, it only makes sense to publish more poorly-written, insulting-to-the-reader articles (ahem, such as this one, Gary) in order to generate more controversy (and more letters), in order to generate more income.

Joan Walsh knows exactly what she's doing, and she's laughing all the way to the bank.

One thing the author didn't address which *must* be an issue, and I think is an issue for the letter writers. To be someone writing, you have to have an ego --- to think that you are special, that other people might want your job, but you have it because you are the best.

The fact is the market isn't that efficient. You have your job because you are both good enough (which is, to be fair, *very* good) and because you are lucky. That's true of all of us with good jobs --- in fact, anyone with access to the internet. Lots of people with your level of innate talent (including the willingness to work hard) are in rural India.

I'm sure a lot of the letter writers think they can write better than the journalists, and most of them are wrong, but some are probably right. Even of those that are better, they may not have made the career decision to take the risky, probably jobless, subjects in college & skip the secure pay checks. Some of them may even have written for a while, and decided they didn't like the life.

And I wonder how that affects the traditional writer's ego. This I think will change --- we will get a more accurate assessment of our roles in society, the knowledge that we *are* collaborating --- that the journalists are taking the time to do the research & taking the risk of looking like a fool once they are published, and the rest of us are consumers, and therefore lesser, but we are still part of the process, we do contribute a bit.

blogs and salon... a poor implementation of comments all around. who thought not implemeting threads was acceptable?

usenet is threaded, slashdot has been threaded since day 1, no reason why salon can't look like reddit's comments! check out:

http://programming.reddit.com/info/11uch/comments

(not for the quality of the posts but for the read-ability of the discussion)

this article is an extreme case with 200+ comments, but in general salon's comments section is one of the most un-readable, most click-intensive comments section around!

Please do not praise "the collective wisdom of the masses". There is no such thing. Most people range from ignorant to stupid. This is why not everyone gets to be a journalist. Except now they do. This is why I hate "people powered media".

If Salon forced us (could they really?) to use our real names, then I would still post --- in fact, in the old days I *did* post sometimes in my own, professional name, though mostly with my more anonymous internet persona (I use the same name on wikipedia & blogger.) When they changed the way they associated posts with logins I didn't buy a second premium login. I decided to lose the potential political impact I could have had by being an established expert in some areas in favour of being able to say what I really thought about aspects of life that, as a professional maintaining an image, I would have to be more circumspect about. For me, at least on Salon, that's more often useful, well, I guess it's what I pay my money for (and to be honest, I'm not well-known enough in my profession for my own name to be that much of a big deal!) Still, I think it's a shame I had to make that choice.

The main problem with online feedback is that most posts are anonymous. If posters had to attach their REAL name and REAL email address to an online broadside, they would give a lot more thought to what they were about to say. From behind a cloak of anonymity, the cranks and wingnuts can hurl brickbats without conscience or consequence. I've met some of the people who post vitriol on my online forum. In person these are polite, quiet people who would never have the courage--or the stupidity--to say ignorant things on the record. They'd lose their friends and jobs. Equally disturbing, these same people admit that they like to "stir the pot" because they find it entertaining to inflict pain.

If you have something truly thoughtful to add to the conversation, have the courage to sign your name to it.

I have. Some fairly credible. I won't post using real info. Why would anyone? And why do people object to 'no name given' but not 'gigglywhore3245' as if one is somehow better than another? It's odd but trust me, my driver's licence doesn't say 'gigglywhore3245'. I will tell you I was suspended from a forum for using a user name of that's it, blank spaces. People thought it was 'hostile'. So I changed my handle to a random string of letters and they accepted that. ruh-ruh-retards if you ask me. But as far as using real info. No that won't happen.

Writers used to have more control over their own words and the commentary about their writing. They don't anymore. The pubic has more power to shape opinions of an individual writer and their work than the actual writer does.

First, I am surprised that, based on the writing that Mr. Kamiya does, he doesn't even think about his audience when writing his work. I could understand a fiction writer not thinking about the audience as much, but if an author is writing and has no knowledge of or care about the reader, than write a diary. Why would I want to read your work?

Two, the oldest comment on here yelps about how stupid people are. I get so tired of hearing that. Yes, there are many stupid people out in the world, but surprisingly, some of those idiots are actually paid journalists. The contempt that some journalists have for the common person, is repulsive. I work in publishing and some very stupid people work as journalists. They knew the right person (and maybe did the right thing, and i don't mean writing) to get their job. There is a lot of politics that go into who is paid to be a journalist and then these journalists themselves used to have a lot of power to shape public dialog and debate in the world. With the web 2.0, and user created content, this is rapidly changing. And somehow I don't think journalists like it so much. Unless your a novelist, the journalist's relevancy is about as crucial to dissemination of information to society as Katie Couric.