- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
OK, I've read 21 pages of commentary about Camille. I knew from previous postings by her that she drew a lot of letters, but I'd chosen not to read either her articles or letters after getting enough of her shtick years ago (I've subscribed to Salon since the beginning of subscriptions).
I decided to see how other Salon readers were taking the CP resurrection, and to my relief, they're hugely against her being given this venue. She truly doesn't, and never has deserved it, judging her purely on the quality of her "work."
One thing I've noticed in many of the letters praising CP and disparaging her many detractors is they claim (in so many words) that there's no substance to the complaints (richly ironic, that). Well, let's just play along and say that was true. Where then, are the quoted examples of her worthy writing, genuine insight, or simply accurate prognostication? They must be there, I've heard even a broken clock is right twice a day (I've often wondered, could that be true if both hands are missing?). If her detractors are required to give satisfactory explanation for their views, fairness dictates that her supporters do the same, or at least the ones who complain should.
And no, I feel no need whatsoever to read her again, she proved too long ago with her blame-the-victim writings that she is beneath contempt.
For Salon: please exhibit more sound judgment in the future. Just like that monstrous hit-piece you did on the late, great Mediawhoresonline.com which I won't forgive until you apologize, you tread very thin ice when you waste resources on stupid bloviators. Thankfully the wonderful writings of Joe Conason and others greatly outweigh your stupidity with CP, or I'd be adding my voice to the chorus of no-longer-subscribers.
Learn to differentiate quality from web-hits.
--Ron Robertson
