Kudos to Once Premium, Twice Shy. It might have been inevitable, but I believe the “blogification” of Salon has been greatly to its detriment. Rather than attempting to provide accurate, probing journalism, the goal now seems to be as Joan herself says in this article, “page views.” That’s the really the lowest and most crass form of journalism, and so great a distance to fall from what this site started out as, it really is sad to see such devolution. It’s not even a new model – it’s an old model of populist publishing in a new medium.

Almost every headline article is now clearly positioned in order to divide readers and whip up “controversy.” Many follow the same pattern: DO RELIGIOUS PEOPLE HAVE A POINT OR ARE THEY DESTESTABLE WHACKOS? DO VEGETARIANS HAVE A POINT OR ARE THEY DETESTABLE WHACKOS? DO 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORISTS HAVE A POINT ARE THEY DETESTABLE WHACKOS? DOES OBAMA HAVE A POINT OR IS HE A DESTESTABLE WHACKO (AND BY THE WAY, WHAT COLOR IS HE)?

Everything is black-and-white, without nuance, and as purposefully (and disturbingly) polarizing as could be. You can almost see the editors counting the letters before the enter buttons are hit. The more the better.

But this is not journalism in the great tradition of the craft. Nor is this the kind of “democracy” that will result in a better nation or even better on-line community. Honestly, it’s more like “American Idol” Journalism. It’s sheer rabble-rousing and, often, reading through the letters that result only serves to depress me on a grand scale. Everyone stakes out their ground and holds their obvious positions and there is very little legitimate dialogue. You see a portrait of an angry, exhausted culture that finds even a reason to inject venom into the most trivial topics.

Yes, it’s too late to put the genie back in the bottle and journalism will have to redefine itself in the Internet age. But if having letter writers serve as fact-checkers, ego-checkers and popularity-givers is the best you can do, I don’t think you’ve hit on the model yet.

There is a reason journalists used to stay away from the hoi-polloi and it wasn’t Ivory Tower elitism. It was because journalism aspires to something higher than easy human reactions.

Last year I gave a guest lecture to communications undergrads at Boston University; the topic was the ramifications of this very assault on the gatekeepers of the media. What I discovered, to my surprise, was that very few of the students even recognize a difference between the two sides -- nor, necessarily, between editorializing and reporting. So it may have gone beyond even what Kamiya has observed.

As the prof explained to me later: they live in a different world -- and ours is gone.

On the subject of writer's wounded egos, the fact is -- let's be honest -- the caliber of writing out there has declined with the enormous increase in quantity. If anyone needs to be a little more honest, it's the legion of professionals who pat themselves on the back for regurgitating the same things over and over, or simply furthering along some trendy nugget gleaned from a little light reading.

Nearly everyone can tell the difference between someone creating something of substance, and the naval-gazers who have no more handle on their subject than do their readers. You can't blame the readers for noticing.

In other words, let's get real. The presence of trolls doesn't excuse laziness, politically correct button-pushing, or flat-out lousy writing. Plenty of writers -- at Salon and elsewhere -- need this wake-up call.

Overall, I commend Kamiya for a well-written, perceptive, honest, level-headed article. It's also easy to confirm Kamiya's premise--that a chunk of the Internet's readership has often responded to journalists with vitriol and stupidity.

But ... Kamiya never wonders what some of the causes might be for this phenomenon. Did the Internet itself somehow generate and nurse a million little HAL 9000s who never before existed?

Here's a clue: when I first read the sentence beginning "[the Internet] has also thrown open the gate to creeps, narcissists and wannabe Byrons," I honestly thought Kamiya was describing not readers, but rather the least of his colleagues, the extraordinary number of (yes) untalented journalists, hacks, and commentators working for online news sources, partisan newsletters, talk radio, and (probably worst of all) the proliferating number of specialty magazines. Throw in Kamiya's later reference to "fools, knaves, blowhards and nuts," stir in the word "drunks," and you have the century-old stereotype of--well, of journalists.

And therein lies the truth: the maddening and maddened crowd are taking their cues not only from the Gary Kamiya, Paul Krugman, Gail Collins, and Dana Milbank, but also from insult mongers like Ann Coulter, Camille Paglia, Dinesh D'Souza, Dale Peck, and Bill O'Reilly. (Do I really need to point out that the latter group is more famous and certainly richer than the former?)

Why do Kamiya and his colleagues seem surprised that there exists an element of the Internet community that is no more civilized than Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage? Have they listened to what those "blowhards" have to say about the liberals on Salon lately? Is the reprehsible way some Salon readers treated the Yaskulka family really any different, in substance or style, than the way an appalling number of pundits on major network and cable news programs treat, say, Cindy Sheehan or the "Jersey Widows"?

As someone who used to work for a print magazine and an academic journal, I can vouch that there have always been cranks. But the sheer quantity (and, sometimes, the quality) of hostile reaction should make anyone wonder if maybe today's audience is nothing more than a crystal-clear mirror of Kamiya's profession.

I agree with Susan and several other posters. There should be filters, and editors' choice, although useful, does toss some of the wheat with the chaff. There is an easier reader-implemented option that works well in other forums.

First, Salon must enforce a "signature" for the posts. No "anonymous", no allowing folks to type in different signatures on posts at their whim. One person, one unique signature. Enforced.

Second, allow readers a "block this poster" option where the poster is identified by the signature. Then we readers can filter according to our own lights. No Salon interns required.