Salon Blogs
Salon has followed the footsteps of companies like MSNBC and Macromedia and is now allowing their employees (*ahem* writers) to join the blogging bandwagon. The lights aren't completely on yet, but you can now check out a number of Salon blogs in their virginal, "Hey, does this work? Test Test 123" stage.
Speaking of Salon, my annual subscription just came up for renewal. I passed. It saddened me to do so, but the rally-around-Salon patriotism I felt a year ago has dimmed.
For me at least, Salon failed to offer anything unique besides pages without advertisements (I read sites all the time with ads and hardly notice them) and an endless stream of "premium" George W. Bush bashing. I have just as many mixed emotions about the President as the next person, but since the 2000 elections Salon's editors have relentlessly smeared the White House every chance they had. Liberals probably rejoiced, but for non-partisan, independent readers like myself, their lop-sided journalism often felt amateur and tiresome. As bad, if not worse, than Fox News.
For now, I'm sitting this year out.
Comments
Not sure if I agree with this. Salon isn't pro-Bush, but they generally write intelligently on really critical issues. This is more than I can say for The Nation, which is significantly more biased.
Posted by: Ray at July 24, 2002 9:49 AM
The blogs are not just for Salon staff, anyone can plunk down $39.95 for Radio software and a spot (hosting) in the new community.
Posted by: Greg at July 24, 2002 10:34 AM
Salon writes intelligently from a leftist perspective. I don't see how anyone who reads Salon on a regular basis could possibly deny this. To say they write without bias is actually laughable. I used to enjoy reading Salon, but now it's just so predictable I've lost all interest.
Posted by: Kent at July 24, 2002 12:02 PM
I second that, Kent.
Like Todd, I never renewed my premium subscription because most of the premium content IS Bush-bashing, which I'm tired of and annoyed by. The ads? What ads? I work in the business, I am desensitized to ads...
don't even notice them.
So what's left to enjoy at Salon? Cary Tennis' advice column. And even that is getting stale.
Salon has lost its appeal for me, yet for some reason I still read it.
Posted by: Ivonne at July 24, 2002 1:28 PM
Ummm, I didn't say it was *without* bias, I just said that it took a critical stance. There's a biiig difference there.
Posted by: Ray at July 25, 2002 2:23 PM
I've considered subscribing to Salon, mainly to get rid of the goddamn Flash interstitial ads, but as it turns out the ads are the reason I'm not going to subscribe. It's immoral to introduce something that's deliberately designed to annoy people, and then offer to remove it for a fee. It's a protection racket, and I won't support it.
Posted by: kirkaracha at July 25, 2002 3:34 PM
Um, why would you all want to use the term "bashing" to describe the fact that Salon continues to be vigilant in looking critically at current events? Is it "bashing" to point out that Bush and Cheney are hypocrites on the matter of corporate reform? To me that -- and much of the rest of the "negative" things Salon prints about Bush, et. al. -- is simply *true.* Of course Bush would prefer that you think that anyone who is critical of him and his administration is "bashing" him, but... Sure Salon is biased, but so is CBS, CNN, Fox, or whatever other information outlet you care to name. Knowing Salon is biased to the left should enable you to take some of their more extreme positions with a grain of salt, but that needn't invalidate the site's content as a whole.
For those of you who are down on Salon for its critical stance, please ask yourselves: Who benefits if sites like Salon are dismissed as "bashers"? Or another way to put that: Who benefits when the only "news" we see consists of mostly positive soundbites mixed in with non-stop coverage of the latests sensational murder/kidnapping/"terrorist" attack or scandal du jour?
Posted by: mowabb at August 2, 2002 1:18 PM
