Letters to the Editor
-
HealThisNation...
I sincerely doubt that Joan was including you among the few trolls.
Fwiw, my definition of a troll (after much observation) is someone who typically and consistently posts in bad faith, and usually tries to hijack the comment thread for his or her own agenda.
I haven't seen all of your posts, but the ones I've read weren't anything like that.
The ones that seem Republican-paid or inspired are most likely the ones with lots of vitriol and ugly names. Again, that would not be you.
-
@ Anon
Thank you. The troll business was so weird, and seemed to be so directly related to my post about Hardball, that it was hard to avoid thinking she must have meant me. But your comment makes me feel as if I am among friends again. So Thanks.
-
Easy Answers?
Joan Walsh only engages with those for whom she has easy answers
e.g. like she was on vacation when the Geraldine Ferraro story persisted.
When she cannot justify her many blogs which are pro Hillary and very anti Obama, she dismisses her questioners as "creepy Republican trolls" or just ignores those who call her spin.
I have never voted for a Republican in my life. I guess she just ignored my post because she really did not want to engage in any meaningful dialogue that did not promote Hillary.
-- 08YesWeCan
You just started posting comments on Wednesday. Maybe you've been reading and lurking longer than that, but surely you cannot really expect that an editor whose job is being an editor, not a blogger (which she does to be more accessible), is going to immediately respond to one of your many complaints just because you demand it? Lots of Salon's commenters have been around since the really old days when the M$M would regularly, and gleefully, predict its demise. And that wasn't so long ago. The last Clinton administration. Over time, relationships between editors/columnists/bloggers/commenters develop, but it usually takes more than two days.
Frankly, I took exception to your comment (re: what Hillary wants) about Salon's Clintonites being Republican women who could never vote for a African-American.
I am a real Democrat. I voted for Jesse Jackson. Twice, if I recall correctly. And I always vote in the Democratic primary (even when it doesn't really count), and then for the nominee in November, i.e., for the candidate who won.
On the other side of the coin, one of my coworkers was upset recently because I did not consider him a real Democrat, after he switched his registration from Republican to Democrat, so he could vote for Obama in the primary, but not necessarily for Hillary if she were to be the candidate in November.
I told him that if his intention was to vote for McCain, instead, I would prefer that he not vote, and that if that was his intention, it only confirmed that he was not really a Democrat. And I am really big small-d democrat when it comes to voting and counting all of the votes.
But this election cycle is pretty screwed up, because none of the primary results can be analyzed for any real meaning, with so many people voting outside their parties or for strategic purposes (ala Rush). Still, you might want to take a little more care, before you start accusing an entire group of commenters/voters--whom you don't know-- of voting in bad faith.
-
Two days later and Salon/Walsh STILL hasn't corrected the major error in the transcript
"wealthy" = "grumpy"
Are Salon's editors asleep at the tiller?
-
@Joan Walsh
Joan Walsh: "I admit I did give up for a few days last week because of the dispiriting unfairness and bad faith I saw in several threads, and there are definitely several people I don't read or reply to anymore."
I seem to have made that list.
-
You're welcome, HtN
If you go back and look at what Joan wrote, she used the phrase "a couple," and that's all it takes. Just a couple... and then we're off to the races.
As for whether Joan responds or not to every complaint or comment directed to her, a simple count of the numbers of commenters expecting that feedback and then multiplying that number by 2 or 3 for the inevitable back and forth, and you can see how an editor could not get any of her "real" work done.
Sometimes that happens at Glenn Greenwald's blog, too, but eventually, if the (usually new) commenter lasts (the regulars can be ruthless), they alter their expectations. Greenwald will respond to a comment when there is a reason for him to do so, which usually means that by responding he's also clarifying something for everyone else.
From what I've read (while lurking) in Joan's comment threads lately, the demands being made of her are of a different nature, mostly requesting justifications that really cannot be made to anyone's satisfaction. If Glenn does respond to something like that, he can be pretty sharp.
-
@ X Hutman
"I seem to have made that list."
Count your blessings.
-
From Joan Walsh
HealThisNation, I don't answer the trolls, or at least I try not to. (I can think of one exception.) I think you're being unfair to me, but I don't think you're a troll. A lot of us are feeling over-sensitive these days.
Xrandadu Hutman, you're not a troll, but you are a pain in the ass. I used the transcript CNN sent me, that night. I'm still not sure what she said was "grumpy" in that segment, although I do remember she did say it later. I don't think it changes her, or my, larger point. I honestly haven't had a minute to go back to CNN and see if what she said was grumpy, but people have read you telling them that, and I haven't contradicted or deleted or denied.
Why don't you start your own blog? Seriously. You could fact-check me. You're getting annoying.
But I do answer you.
-
"Her point was that she had made inroads into a voting bloc that the Republicans have controlled for some time by using social issues as wedge issues, resulting in lots of folks voting against their own interests on bread and butter issues."
My point is that better numbers in the primary against Obama are not the same as better numbers against McCain in the general, regardless of the particular demographic.
As for the "nasty Obama poster" issue...many people have brought this up. But I'm not convinced that my opinion has any influence on them at all, whether that opinion is presented politely or not. Of course the undecided voters might be influenced...although I don't see many of those here.