Salon suspends "Bushed".

September 21, 2001 12:16 PM

Salon suspends "Bushed". Citing the need to "marshal our editorial forces to cover the global terrorism story," Salon EIC David Talbot has suspended "Bushed" a daily feature that takes a close, often critical, look at the Bush Administration. Does anyone buy his rationale? This reeks of journalistic cowardice...
posted by mattpusateri (21 comments total)

HERE WE GO MEDIA CENSORSHIP FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY. FUCK I WONDER IF THEY HAVE HIGH SPEED ISP IN ICELAND I'M OUTTA HERE. ANYBODY HAVE A LINK TO JOBS IN ICELAND.
posted by jbou at 12:27 PM on September 21, 2001

no one wants to risk appearing "unAmerican" these days.

But at this moment, unity is important. Maybe Salon's doing this is valuable for the statement it makes -- we should all think about how we criticize the administration.

That said, I believe Talbot when he says Salon will provide "even more news and commentary about the Bush administration as it leads the country through this defining period".

We'll see how they execute on this. But there's no reason, yet, to think there's any media censorship here, self- or otherwise.
posted by mattpfeff at 12:30 PM on September 21, 2001

Or maybe the column just had all the popular success of "That's My Bush".
posted by harmful at 12:34 PM on September 21, 2001

HERE WE GO MEDIA CENSORSHIP FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.

Whoa, whoa. Nobody is telling Salon to do it. They are doing it themselves. It's kind of like a comedian not saying a mis-carriage joke in front of someone who just had a mis-carriage.

It's not censorship, but it's an awareness of the larger situation at hand.

Besides, Salon's column was ultimately an opinion piece that was designed to cater to those who hate Bush. Now, it looks like Salon is catering to those who want to hear as much positive stuff about Bush as possible.
posted by RoyalJack at 12:38 PM on September 21, 2001

Salon has also used this tragedy to try and sell subscriptions. And so is the LA Times. Pathetic.
posted by owillis at 12:46 PM on September 21, 2001

Last night, Jon Stewart said: "Subliminable isn't a punchline anymore." Someday, when it is again, he said, that will mean we got through this OK.
posted by Holden at 12:47 PM on September 21, 2001

I agree with RoyalJack.

There is a time and place for everything.

I was never really a fan of G.W. Bush.

But I never read the column either cause I found it redundant and pointless.
posted by Qambient at 12:48 PM on September 21, 2001

It's not just Salon look whats happening to bill maher.
posted by jbou at 12:49 PM on September 21, 2001

Also MIA: Slate's "Bushism of the Week"
posted by luser at 12:54 PM on September 21, 2001

This will be looked back on as Bush's high point some day.

As for all of this mass conformity in the media, it's going to be interesting to see who blinks first.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 12:56 PM on September 21, 2001

I mean, "...of the Day"
posted by luser at 12:56 PM on September 21, 2001

ANYBODY HAVE A LINK TO JOBS IN ICELAND

No, but I can give you the number of a therapist who can help you deal with that compulsion to type in all-caps.
posted by MrBaliHai at 12:59 PM on September 21, 2001

This will be looked back on as Bush's high point some day.

Or perhaps a turning point, no?

As far as the Bushed issue (I thought I posted this, but it was right before my computer crashed so apparently it didn't go through), what would Bushed be covering right now?

Bush's moves in the "War against Terrorism".

What is almost every news outlet, including Salon, massively covering?

The War against Terrorism.

That means that just about every article will have elements regarding Bush. So I don't see the problem with moving the Bushed editors/writers over to regular Salon articles. It provides more balance and eliminates a redundancy.

I don't see why anyone would see a conspiracy when there is a far simpler, rational and confirmed explanation.

If you look hard enough for a conspiracy, you'll find one, whether or not is real...
posted by fooljay at 1:07 PM on September 21, 2001

This will be looked back on as Bush's high point some day.

That's the spirit, Barney -- root for things to go badly in the aftermath of Sept. 11 so it reflects badly on Bush.
posted by rcade at 1:25 PM on September 21, 2001

It must be time-consuming to defend the editorial integrity of Salon -- evidently none of its critics have had the time to read the site that's supposedly taken a rightward turn in response to the attacks.

• "The U.S. can't win a ground war in Afghanistan."


• "It is becoming shockingly clear just how much the powers-that-be knew about our country's vulnerability -- and how little they did to ensure our safety."


• For far too long, the United States has pretended to stand on the sidelines of a conflict in which we are not neutral"

posted by rcade at 1:32 PM on September 21, 2001

Oh, for Christ's sake. They dumped "Bushed" because they only have about three writers left, and right now people want to read serious news analysis, not snarky one-liner political polemics. Nothing more.
posted by aaron at 1:45 PM on September 21, 2001

Do you all remember JustSayBlow.com? It was a petition site saying "President Bush, if you deny federal funds to students who won't talk about their drug histories, it's only fair that you forego your federal salary until you are willing to come clean with your own drug past."

They, too, have suspended their usual activities in order to "ask all Americans to join together to face this crisis and help the victims and their families". Wow.
posted by Sapphireblue at 2:01 PM on September 21, 2001

It must be time-consuming to defend the editorial integrity of Salon -- evidently none of its critics have had the time to read the site that's supposedly taken a rightward turn in response to the attacks.

My point was never to argue that somehow Salon had become right-wing, but that the justification for suspending "Bushed" seemed disingenuous at best.

The column was rarely a "polemic", but a quick daily look at policy issues and events that often got overlooked. They are still covering the same places, people, and stories... but they seem unwilling to put them in a single column.

If Salon wants to toe the line and "unite behind our President", fine. But admit to that and say you don't think it's appropriate to have such a column during a time of national crisis... Don't pretend you're no longer covering the administration and focusing on "covering global terrorism"
posted by mattpusateri at 2:54 PM on September 21, 2001

"Bushed" was funny for about, oh, a week in January, and I suspect that Talbot was desperate to dump it. For "balance", they could always lose David Horowitz: I'm sure Slashdot would sign him up as the Jon Katz of the Crass Opportunistic Right.
posted by holgate at 3:28 PM on September 21, 2001

Salon has been mostly crap for some time now, much likely due to the fact that, as aaron suggests, they have almost no writers left. At their peak, Salon wasn't just a "liberal enclave", but a source of some very good reporting on issues a little outside and complementary to more mainstream coverage- good enough that the likes of Horowitz (whom the inimitable Joshua Marshall has openly described as an *$%hole), Paglia, and other such trolls were tolerable. Now... well, I think the signing of Norah Vincent pretty much sounded the death knell: Salon.com is dead, long live Salon.com. It's a shame, because Salon.com was a much needed voice to counteract the Scaife- and- Murdoch- "news" organizations.
posted by hincandenza at 5:38 PM on September 21, 2001

If Salon wants to toe the line and "unite behind our President", fine.

You can't possibly be basing this statement on the contents of Salon.
posted by rcade at 5:42 AM on September 22, 2001