Letters to the Editor
-
@Xrandadu Hutman
The more I read Joan's editorials and War Room articles I get the sense that, besides their obvious but unstated preference towards Senator Clinton ...
... the more I get the impression that besides doing what they can to injure the leading candidate through smear, a 2nd more short-term goal is to just drive up activity on Salon.com. More web activity increases the odds of ad sales, and what better way to do so then to drive as much traffic to the site, even if it's negative.
And while I'm certain the majority of 'letters' are realistic and its writers are attempting to engage in a frank debate and commentary - and some masquerading as other candidate supporters, making lewd, incorrect or foul comments for the simple purpose of making said candidate look bad - I also suspect that some specific letter-writers are neither, but rather operatives working with Salon.com directly or indirectly for the same purpose as above. That is, they make deliberately corrosive statements that people like you (and to some extent, me as I've only recently starting posting) find themselves responding to.
Perhaps I'm just being overtly cynical . But I find it's not just Joan Walsh or War Room, there have been other members of the Salon staff who've posted articles that while pretending to be somewhat objective, in fact really have deliberately partisan in effort to prop up one Presidential candidate, and bring down another. To date, most haven't been really clever.
I find it all very sad to see.
I've been coming to Salon since 1999. It's usually the first site I browse when I get online. I've seen a lot of changes, and lots come and go here. And all in all, I've been a fan of Ms. Walsh and many of the initiatives introduced here.
And while there are many sections and staff I would rather see go because things they post which I consider stupid (just my opinion), over the years I've chosen to ignore those elements and focus on the parts I like (Tom Tomorrow, Book reviews, Greenwald, Movies, Zacharek, Conason, HTWW, writers like Kamiya I'm starting to like more). Even when I don't agree with what's said - even from these sources - I've always let it slide, and move on with the day.
But the recent slate of articles slanted towards Senator Clinton under the guise of neutral objectivity has left a really sour taste in my mouth. I don't object to someone having a certain point of view, but I take issue with someone who pretends to be objective, only to get caught repeating one candidate's failed talking points. This particular article referencing the NYT piece by Nagourney is I guess my tipping point. This becomes a waste of my time. That they owners of Salon.com would stoop so low in a sad attempt to help one flawed candidate (who's run a poor campaign and should much of the blame for failing), while cynically using published letters as an attempt to drive up traffic in the short terms makes me now strong think about not coming back here at all.
I continue to enjoy the sources of info from the parts of Salon.com, but wonder if it's worth it.
You post here a lot Mr. Hutman - you think I'm seeing something more that isn't really there? I'd like a 2nd opinion. Or you think Joan Walsh and here Clinton advocates are only doing what they do to damage Obama's chances of winning and nothing more?