Comments on: Comments on 10674

Post number 10674

mattpusateri — Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:16:52 -0800

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...

By: jbou

jbou — Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:27:12 -0800

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.

By: mattpfeff

mattpfeff — Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:30:42 -0800

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.

By: harmful

harmful — Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:34:53 -0800

Or maybe the column just had all the popular success of "That's My Bush".

By: RoyalJack

RoyalJack — Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:38:15 -0800

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.

By: owillis

owillis — Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:46:25 -0800

Salon has also used this tragedy to try and sell subscriptions. And so is the LA Times. Pathetic.

By: Holden

Holden — Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:47:36 -0800

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.

By: Qambient

Qambient — Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:48:40 -0800

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.

By: jbou

jbou — Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:49:11 -0800

It's not just Salon look whats happening to bill maher.

By: luser

luser — Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:54:25 -0800

Also MIA: Slate's "Bushism of the Week"

By: BarneyFifesBullet

BarneyFifesBullet — Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:56:10 -0800

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.

By: luser

luser — Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:56:10 -0800

I mean, "...of the Day"

By: MrBaliHai

MrBaliHai — Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:59:08 -0800

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.

By: fooljay

fooljay — Fri, 21 Sep 2001 13:07:37 -0800

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...

By: rcade

rcade — Fri, 21 Sep 2001 13:25:19 -0800

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.

By: rcade

rcade — Fri, 21 Sep 2001 13:32:08 -0800

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"

By: aaron

aaron — Fri, 21 Sep 2001 13:45:27 -0800

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.

By: Sapphireblue

Sapphireblue — Fri, 21 Sep 2001 14:01:44 -0800

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.

By: mattpusateri

mattpusateri — Fri, 21 Sep 2001 14:54:35 -0800

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"

By: holgate

holgate — Fri, 21 Sep 2001 15:28:15 -0800

"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.

By: hincandenza

hincandenza — Fri, 21 Sep 2001 17:38:34 -0800

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.

By: rcade

rcade — Sat, 22 Sep 2001 05:42:23 -0800

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.