Or will you simply return to the low-brow "journalism" at which you continually excel?

In other words, will you return to the everyday tasks of making sure you savage Sarah Palin tomorrow, after bemoaning Cronkite's death today? Or will nothing change?

Will Cronkite's death finally inspire you to reconcile Salon's blatant misogyny against Sarah Palin in the articles I've listed below?

Gary Kamiya has depicted and made reference to Palin as a “dominatrix” and called her a "pinup queen" and "babaliciousness" as well. He has also stated that her “whip-wielding persona was a turn-on” and that her convention address gave the partisan crowd a "collective woody." Not to mention the fact that he also asked: “Hey, did you check out Palin's rack?” Go here for verification:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2008/09/09/mistress_palin/

Cintra Wilson called Palin a “fuckable Christian Stepford wife” in a “sexy librarian costume" who Republicans saw as a "hard-core pornographic centerfold spread." Go here for verification:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/09/10/palin_feminism/index.html?source=rss&aim=/mwt/feature

Finally, Tracy Clark-Flory posted "Sneak Peek: The Palin Porno" on Salon’s Broadsheet page. It’s a clip from a porno video made by Hustler Magazine’s Larry Flynt, using a Palin look alike. Go here for verification:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2008/10/20/palin_porn/index.html

Any thoughts this time, Joan? I mean, after your reflection on Cronkite's death? Or will you once again back up your sentiments with absolutely nothing. Honestly, as “Editor-in-Chief,” isn’t it as simple as issuing a zero tolerance policy on misogyny to the Salon staff and your freelance writers? And isn’t “the buck stops here” something implicit in your title? Or are you really Salon's Misogynist-in-Chief? I look forward to your response (and not a deletion of my post this time).

I forgot to add that Russet was a grinning, smirking LOUD MOUTH.

Glenn Greenwald is my Walter Cronkite.

Give it a rest, you mindless little Palin fanboy. Does she pay you to be such an incessant little whiner? Does she pay you to keep your crusade going?

Salon's coverage isn't "misogynist". It's obvious you don't know the meaning of the word. It's just truthful about Palin's lies, her ignorance, her incompetence and her corruption.

Give it a rest and move on.

Why are the American people being denied needed information by the 'liberals' in the media who are largely supported (watched) by Democrats and progressives?

Maddow and Olbermann are disgraceful. Only O'Reilly could make them look good.

-- Remarque

************

So you are saying Maddow only criticizes Republicans?

The facts beg to differ:

Rachel Maddow Criticizes Obama on “Prolonged Detention”

http://www.infowars.com/rachel-maddow-criticizes-obama-on-prolonged-detention/

Rachel Maddow, on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, said, that Obama "supported repealing the Defense of Marriage Act when he took office," yet now "he's defending it, defending it using the same arguments as the Bush Administration, contending it's not discrimination, that it is constitutional, all the while using arguments that equate same-sex marriage with pedophilia and incest."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_090616.htm

"Glenn Greenwald is my Walter Cronkite."

I'll drink to that.

Re: “……among the best”.

Unless insufferable egotism is a prerequisite, you may want to reconsider one of your nominees. Specifically, David Sirota.

Sirota wrote a little article for Salon entitled “The house that taxpayers built”, purporting to “expose” the excesses of Michael Bloomberg and the New York Yankees in the building of the new Yankee Stadium. It was light on original content and not especially well written.

A couple of letter writers exchanged views on the relative worth of what Sirota wrote.

Mertam posted:

“Details, please.

I am not a fan of the Yankees or Bloomberg. I think that it is disgraceful that the cheapest seat I could find for any Yankees game was $350. But this article is nothing more than griping.

I was hoping this article would have some interesting facts about the maneuvers used to pay for the mausoleum in the Bronx. Unfortunately, this article has no meat to it. It is only a hand waving article with all easy opinion backed with no reporting. Please do some work next time or leave this on your personal blog where it won't be posing as Journalism.”

Immediately thereafter, teho (apparently attempting to put what Sirota wrote in perspective for mertam) posted:

“Opinion, not journalism

@mertam, apparently you missed the "Opinion" label at the top of the article. You also seem to have missed, upon reading the piece, that it was structured as opinion rather than journalism.

Because of limited space, opinion pieces traditionally do not have to lay out the evidence for their claims. They do have an obligation not to lie or deceive about that evidence.

On the internet, and especially on Salon, there's no reason for opinion pieces to lack links to further reading. I know Salon is just publishing Sirota's syndicated content, but the guy has a blog and you should be linking to it.

Back on topic: Another reason the Yankees suck.”

To which Prince David blasted back at these two thusly:

“@teho and @mertam: Are you illiterate?

@teho and @mertam:

Evidently, you two idiots do not read. Because if you did, you'd see that this article, in fact, packs a ton of facts into just 625 words (my column limit), includin(sic):

- How much the city taxpayers had to pay for the stadium

- The findings of a state legislative report (report here: http://assembly.state.ny.us/member_files/092/20081106/)

- The precise financing structure/Ponzi scheme structure of the ripoff

- Repeated direct quotes from the mayor

- Statistics about the wealth of the mayor, and about the size of his budget cuts

Now, I realize, in the blogosphere, whiney people like you like to whine a lot. But the idea that this 625 word article doesn't pack verifiable facts is absurd. When you make such a claim, it makes you look like you are illiterate."

-- David Sirota

His Royal Hindparts Sirota (apparently foaming at the mouth) was so incensed and frosted at the failure of these two mere letter writers to grasp the incredible depth and wisdom of his reporting that he posted that little diatribe twice. His petulance was so consuming he even failed to notice that teho, a premium Salon subscriber, appeared to defend the article.

Sirota is so full of himself that he probably has to call Roto-Rooter to pull himself out after taking a shit.

Link to article and letters here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/05/23/sirota/index.html