Letters to the Editor
-
@ captainlarab
While I agree with you that some indepth coverage of platform/plans of the candidates would be great at this juncture, it almost comes a little late. Also, I am not sure that this is what Koppelman and "War Room" actually does.
I would like to see the same examination that you yearn for in energy also done with health care. These are both such complicated issues that I think most of us could use a bit more basic education.
Where and how do you think we can best nag Salon to give us that basic education?
-
Hardly ever read comments on Salon...
...as I usually find that they exceed my tolerance for invective. Still, I concur with the observation that many blogs are lately suffering the same malady in their comments sections.
The only solution that I can offer is for commenters to ignore the flame-bait. Say your bit, debate with others willing to engage is civil discourse, and ignore the rest.
Forum moderation has to be a thankless job. I'm sorry that task takes away from time that Alex can better devote to his news gathering and analysis activities.
-
Training from Spock's Father
Paraphrasing Ambassador Sarek, Spock's father, from the episode "Journey to Babel" there are those who do not argue for reason, they simply argue. I find it better to just ignore such folks and let them go on. Meanwhile, the rest of us can go on enriching each other with our thoughts about the topics at hand in the letters section. And I do enjoy the intelligent discourse.
-
Mea culpa
I got into a 3 comment "discussion" with somebody about whether sexism actually exists and is as bad as racism before I realized that I was having this discussion with a troll. It would help a lot if you dumped the "anonymous" option, or at the very least limited it. It's hard to tell the difference between somebody who is sincerely making a point (and is completely wrong ) and somebody who is simply baiting. Trolls can be very subtle, and some of us are wrongly inspired to rise to a passionate defense of a cherished principle all too easily.
-
@CuteNFuzzyBunny
You actually did this? I've been suggesting that campaigns were doing this for some time, but people keep calling me paranoid. It makes perfect sense to me that they would do it. Campaigns spend millions on television commercials, why on earth would they not spend a few hundred thousand paying college kids to spend their time on blogs posting talking points for and against candidates. I'll even go so far as to suggest that a lot of the dissent on left-wing blogs is a direct result of right-wingers quietly stirring up trouble.
-
@CuteNFuzzy
But a lot of the heated exchanges going on here have the feel of possibly falling under this catagory...Attempts by the campaigns to influence the blogs and to score points on a micro level.
You know, Fuzzy, I've been getting exactly that vibe here lately - when the same few posters on every Clinton/Obama thread seem to have all the time in the world to counter-punch every argument made against their candidate in a 300-400 post thread, it makes me more than a bit suspicious.
It's also completely turned me off not only to Salon, but pretty much the whole campaign. Sigh.
-
I am delighted to know that the Salon writers really read our posts!
Thank you for reading, Alex. May your eyes last ten thousand years!
[I am thinking about posting anonymously, just to elicit groans.]
-
I'm late -
but last night was quite amazing - and there is a good reason why a lot of posts have vanished and the warriors are nowhere to be seen.
-
Thank You!!
It is because of what you write about that has stopped me from reading any of the comments like I used to. Thanks for being proactive in addressing this!
-
I URGE CIVIL DISCOURSE
Great start. I have had several letters taken down, one yesterday, when I mildly critized posters who were vulgar and/or abusive. (i.e. Joan's piece on David Shuster/Scapegoat?) So I just assumed that any critical comments were out of line. The level of public discourse is nearly in the gutter. Today, you are asking for our comments. I gave them. It is time to raise the bar. If these posters are adults (or mature), it is even more depressing. Being for one candidate and against another does not have to be so vicious, inaccurate, even lies stated as facts, as has been the case of Clinton vs. Obama.
My time reading Salon and comments has been reduced by 3/4s because of the rude threads that get out of hand. I probably will cease and desist after the primary entirely.
-
Focus on the issue, not the poster
Well said. The most reliable way to make an argument that doesn't get deleted is not to attack a fellow poster but to focus your point on the issue. It's easy to fall into the "food fight" trap because many people take things, especially politics, personally and stepping on other people's toes is so easy.
-
Add my voice to the chorus calling for an IGNORE feature
If you won't get rid of anon, at least do this for us.
-
@ shaggylocks
"Tim left big shoes to fill, but I'm sure you have what it takes to fill them."
I agree.
I admit that I've been feeling a wee nostalgic about the good ole days with Tim, but it's important for me to say that I think Alex is doing a great job...by beginning this discussion at the very least. A lot of the recent tomfoolery in the reader's letters could be due to this change in command, not to mention the hightened emotions from the elections.
My suggestions are as follows:
- a rating system (I like the editor's choice, but I'd also like to see what opinions other readers consider worthwhile)
- everybody take a deep breath!
p.s. Anonymous posting doesn't bug me at all. There are times when it's the best choice to safely share your view so it's important to keep that option. Also, I've noticed some bone-headed/off topic posts from those with pseudonyms...even, from time to time, paid subscribers so I don't think killing off Anonymous will get rid of posters who can't behave themselves.