Letters to the Editor
-
Joan Walsh admits her lacks of ethics and professionalism
I'll give you this, Joan Walsh: you don't try to hide your complete lack of ethics or professionalism. Of course, this simply magnifies your arrogance and sense of entitlement, neither of which are desirable or charming traits, particularly in the editor of a national publication which (according to your statements when you got the job) wants to promote its reporting above other matters. (Chalk that up as a failure by the way: the national journalistic reputation of Salon.com has taken a serious dive in your tenure.)
You've done two good things as Salon editor, Walsh: you helped get Glenn Greenwald a wider audience, and you put on public display the type of incompetence and malfeasance which leads to the decline of a journalistic reputation. (Adding Greenwald to your roster actually managed to magnify and focus your own ethical failings.) You and Judy Miller should get side-by-side statues at the Journalistic Hall of Ignominy. But thanks to both of you for giving prime examples of how not to be a journalist or editor.
Of course, my opinion as a non-paying reader (since the day the site launched) of Salon matters little to you. Money talks, eh?
Here's hoping your resignation comes soon, and that your future elsewhere is bright.
-
To Call These Remarks by Mr Begala Distasteful Is to Indugle in Shameless Euphemism
As a 67-year-old white male, and a New Yorker, I find Mr. Begala's remarks vis a vis Donna Brazile on CNN on May 6 wonderfully representative of why over the past year I have come to hold Hillary Clinton and her campaign in disdain, and why, after having voted twice for her husband for president, and twice for her as senator, I will never vote for her (or for her husband, for that matter, should the opportunity ever arise) for any elected public office again.
Any office. Ever.
-
To Call These Remarks by Mr Begala Distasteful Is to Indugle in Shameless Euphemism
As a 67-year-old white male, and a New Yorker, I find Mr. Begala's remarks vis a vis Donna Brazile on CNN on May 6 wonderfully representative of why over the past year I have come to hold Hillary Clinton and her campaign in disdain, and why, after having voted twice for her husband for president, and twice for her as senator, I will never vote for her (or for her husband, for that matter, should the opportunity ever arise) for any elected public office again.
Any office. Ever.
-
Now Joan calls those who disagree with her "GOP trolls posing as Obama supporters"
Ah, yes... the vast right wing conspiracy strikes again. Hmmm... who was it that coined that expression anyway? Oh, gosh, wasn't it her favorite gal -- dear, sweet Hillary? What a coincidence!
By the way, Joan, in a letter to the editor in The Washington Times, you wrote that Salon "is a news organization, not a left-wing advocacy group." Well, if that’s true, why wouldn’t you welcome diverse opinions – even from people with (gulp) a GOP ideology? Or is it simply easier to label them as “Trolls.” Jeeze, that's rather “elitist” of you, don't you think? I certainly do. Especially after telling Jon Friedman at MarketWatch, “I don't apologize for trying to reach a wider audience," and then going on to stress that Salon is moving beyond simply targeting "ideologically-committed" readers. So wouldn't that target therefore include people with a "GOP” ideology -- if they really ARE lurking in the shadows here at Salon. Why wouldn't you simply welcome them in the spirit of lively, respectful debate. Isn't that what you were saying -- albeit implicitly -- when you spoke to Jon Friedman?
But maybe it’s not “GOP trolls” or "Obamatons" you really despise, Joan -- maybe it's just men in general. I mean, how many articles can a girl write about sexism? It seems like that theme springs from your DNA itself. In fact, I seem to recall an article you wrote going all the way back to March 31, 2007, called "Men who hate women on the Web." And you counted yourself self among them.
Golly, Joan, isn't it just possible that all the negative letters you get from GOP trolls and Obamatons and sexist men are simple a response to your shoddy, biased journalism? Because, frankly, Joan, your "writing" of late has become an "obamanation" -- pun very much intended.
-
@ Joan
A few words about words.
Many of your recent columns have examined the importance of words. The words "God damn America" are offensive because, as you see it, they seem to go against the very idea of America. You argued that the thoughts contained in those words ought better to have been expressed more specifically: God damn, not America, but Bush, or Truman. So the word "America" has enormous potential to cast doubt upon the patriotism of the speaker, and also upon those who know the speaker.
Some individual words have the power to describe motive, bias, disapproval and contempt of class. Words, even individual words, can say a lot about the people who choose them over other, better words. "Bitter" is such a word. For language precisionists, among them you, Obama has no one to blame but himself if people took his use of this word to mean he just disliked PA voters out of simple spite.
Some might disagree whether it usefully advances political debate to concentrate on the meanings of individual words; some might argue that words are most usefully examined in the context of the rest of the words around them. Someone attuned to context might conclude Obama meant PA voters in some areas felt powerless against broader circumstances.
Some might argue that the Deconstructionist School of criticism is less useful in politics than in literature, because in politics there are so many useful ways to judge context, whereas in literature the words must be taken entirely on their own.
So there are some among us who question the value of closely scrutinizing what a candidate stands for by relying on a single word.
Those of us who do question it might not agree that words are as worth examining as closely as you do. Then again, you are a writer and an editor, and the use of language to improve understanding and promote the common good is understandably vital to you.
That being the case, how is it that you hurl "creepy GOP troll" around quite so freely?
If words matter, and it is clear you think they do, you might want to use them more judiciously. No one here, even those who disagree strongly with your choice of candidate, has called you creepy. If a single word can describe motive, bias, disapproval and contempt of class, what ought your use of the word suggest to us, exactly?