I haven't looked at these videos, but I saw one of Glenn Greenwald several months ago and it was awful; I couldn't watch it. I am amazed by the power of Glenn's ideas and words, but the video will never impress anybody. For openers, the sound was so variable from poor to bad, and secondly not everybody who is brilliant has a terrific speaking voice. The authority of the words is lost when all the other distractions come into play.

Please use this new tool sparingly and only for light entertainment or technology pieces.

I realize every media outlet needs to pay the bills somehow. I don't know about the rest of you, though, but the annoying pre-video commercial on my tube was from Pfizer. Does that mean I have to wonder how and whether Salon will deal with the healthcare mess and the obscene profits of drugmakers from this point on? Just a friendly little red flag to wave before the slippery slope gets steeper ...

I agree with everyone who says that these are like bad home movies. The writers' eyes are darting around as they desperately try to remember their inane lines...and then there are Matt Singer's lame self-deprecating jokes. Please stop this—it's just horrible. We live in a truly debased culture if writers can't be valued for their writing alone.

Now THAT I'd like to see. One for each cheek.

It would only require a "partnership" between the DNC and the RNC. You know, just like the one they have now, only you'd be able to see it on YouTube!

My gut reaction: While I loved Clark-Flory's vlog, Scherer's left me confused. Tracy's vlog dovetailed on the blog, so I was already invested and engaged. Hence, the video medium complimented the print medium. With respect to the Scherer entry, I didn't see a print or blog entry, which might have made it a richer experience. (Maybe I missed it?) And what was the point of providing a narrative description of a video ad on a video - why not just show the ad (including the audio) and follow it with commentary? That said, Scherer and Clark-Flory are both good video subjects.

As an aside, I surfed around Current TV, out of curiosity. Not sure what the point is - youtube with premium content? But I'm not really on the bleeding edge of technology, so I'm probably not the best to judge.

why do Feinstein and Shumer fold like a house of cards??

just one more tyrannical Bush has wrought on this country.

the latest assault on this country's allegedly tri-equal system of government.

George, the AWOL from the Alabama National Guard, Jack Daniel drinkin' coke snortin' piece of crap.

there is a tumultuous occurrence on the horizon, the end of this civilization as we know it.

shades of the French Revolution keep reverberating, and if Bush is allowed to continue, this society may have to start all over again.

No. Please, no. I don't want to watch videos in my news articles. I want to read. Didn't Salon use to be a literary magazine? Why are you moving toward becoming more like YouTube?

This is not what I want from Salon. I don't care what print journalists look like, and most print journalists go into that medium for a reason. Being able to write well doesn't mean that you can speak well, and the subject matter should always be more important than the writer in any case. I detest this apparent desire to make journalists celebrities, even in the virtual world.

How-to illustrations are fine, but I don't care what Stephanie Zacharek or Andrew O'Hehir or Rebecca Traister or even you look like, Joan. In fact, in an odd way, knowing what you look and sound like subtracts from your authority in my mind. I just want to read what you write.

100% agree. Not just because I have slow internet, and any film clip is painful, but, right, I want to READ on my own time... And the irritating "cute" accompanying music, no, no, no. More and more I feel I'm losing out when bits of my Salon and Slate go to video...

EXCEPTION - some video'd letters to the editor might be (briefly) fun...

And it's no wonder! Look what we learned! In one post, Joan answered a concerned reader's question by actually admitting she would have let 3,000 Americans die on 9/11 rather than ruining a terrorist's day with the threat of drowning.

READER MIKES PACE ASKED HER: "What if we could have tortured one individual and uncovered the 9/11 plot? Do you (Joan) believe it is ethically permissible to torture one person to save the lives of over 3000?

JOAN'S RESPONSE:"(blah, blah, blah)...there is no scenario in which I'd say it's justified...(blah, blah, blah)"

So deep-thinking Joan would have lept to the defense of an Islamofacist terrorist and let 3,000 fellow Americans perish in the most vicious attack on American soil in our history. My God, I am SO glad I don't live in Joan's bizarre little cocoon.

I've been a Salon addict for several years now, and I just discovered Current TV as of a few days ago when I was looking into the Draft Gore movement. So it feels really synchronistic to read of the Salon/Current TV partnership this morning. Joan, you are on MSNBC a lot, and I appreciate the way you try to cut through any habitual lapses back into that famous habitual MSM pundit laziness. Invite Keith Olbermann to guest over here, too, and do some even-more-indepth commentary on the really deep scary stuff! :)

I meant to say: The latter are shot mostly in a news type format, while the former...

So are the Salon videos going to be unlike the Current pods? The latter are shot mostly in a news type format, while the latter (from this video) is a writer talking into the camera. I hope Salon switches formats.

The Salon/Current TV partnership seems like a natural fit. I look forward to watching it evolve. Now... do something about those production values! Start by giving your video bloggers decent microphones, and a short lesson in mic technique.

Good luck. I'll be watching. And listening.