Salon | Letters to the editor

_______________ THE (NOT SO) MIGHTY QUINN BY HARRY JAFFE (03/09/98)

Thank you so much for starting to take the media to task. Sally Quinn is a shrew and as such she deserves the grilling Mr. Jaffe so savagely delivers. It's as if the collective journalistic psyche has gone ballistic now that the "folk" don't seem to be paying too much attention to what they're saying.
Whether it's a cackling, idiotic Sam Donaldson on the White House lawn incoherently babbling that the president "better convince us he's telling the truth or he's outta here," hypocritical nimrod George Will proclaiming the Clinton's vulgarians or a semi-hysterical Afghan-hound like Anne Coulter literally quaking in righteous indignation, there seems to be a whole lotta journalistic shakin' goin' on. I even tried watching "Sam and Cokie" but could not. George Will and William Kristol are bad enough, but to watch that sniveling cur Stephanopoulos turn on Clinton gives me a stomach ache. I know, it's not about sex, it's "the perjury stupid."
Anyway, I'm paying attention to what Salon is saying -- intelligent opinionated and funny articles that show journalism, at least in some cases, is alive and well.
-- Adam Friedman

_______________ SALON'S COVERAGE OF KENNETH STARR (01/21/98-03/11/98)

As an attorney, as a judge, Ken Starr is supposed to be an officer of the court. As an officer of the court, Starr has the responsibility to seek the truth in civil and criminal cases. The truth must be established through evidence, whether it be physical in nature or testimonial (with credible corroboration). So far, none of what I have seen has contained any of these things.
I am a police officer, and if I were to take the "evidence" of suborning perjury in the Lewinsky matter that Starr has shown so far to any assistant U.S. attorney in the land, they would throw me out of the office (and my chief would probably take my badge).
Ideology aside, let us look at the facts:
1) Lewinsky has been established, by testimonial corroboration and self-admission, as a liar.
2) Starr's best evidence, so far, has been gathered illegally.
3) Starr's second best witness, Lewinsky being the "best," is Linda Tripp, a woman with a political ax to grind.
4) There is no physical evidence to support any claims made by Starr, Tripp or Lewinsky.
5) Lewinsky has a history of mental problems.
Any attorney who would take a case to court on the strength of this stuff is out of his tree! But I guess that shouldn't surprise us, as Ken Starr is only a titular attorney anyway. What he really is, is a political operative, operating above the law, conducting a distracting witch hunt with official congressional sanction.
I love being a police officer, but I don't want to live in a police state. Where does this kind of stuff end?
-- William V. Johnson
SALON | March 11, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| SALON STORIES ON THE CLINTON CRISIS (01/21/98-03/10-98)

If you'd like to submit a letter to the editor for publication,
please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com.
Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness.
If you do not wish the letter to be published, please say so.

_______________ THE (NOT SO) MIGHTY QUINN BY HARRY JAFFE (03/09/98)
	Thank you so much for starting to take the media to task. Sally Quinn is a shrew and as such she deserves the grilling Mr. Jaffe so savagely delivers. It's as if the collective journalistic psyche has gone ballistic now that the "folk" don't seem to be paying too much attention to what they're saying. Whether it's a cackling, idiotic Sam Donaldson on the White House lawn incoherently babbling that the president "better convince us he's telling the truth or he's outta here," hypocritical nimrod George Will proclaiming the Clinton's vulgarians or a semi-hysterical Afghan-hound like Anne Coulter literally quaking in righteous indignation, there seems to be a whole lotta journalistic shakin' goin' on. I even tried watching "Sam and Cokie" but could not. George Will and William Kristol are bad enough, but to watch that sniveling cur Stephanopoulos turn on Clinton gives me a stomach ache. I know, it's not about sex, it's "the perjury stupid." Anyway, I'm paying attention to what Salon is saying -- intelligent opinionated and funny articles that show journalism, at least in some cases, is alive and well. -- Adam Friedman
_______________ SALON'S COVERAGE OF KENNETH STARR (01/21/98-03/11/98)
	As an attorney, as a judge, Ken Starr is supposed to be an officer of the court. As an officer of the court, Starr has the responsibility to seek the truth in civil and criminal cases. The truth must be established through evidence, whether it be physical in nature or testimonial (with credible corroboration). So far, none of what I have seen has contained any of these things. I am a police officer, and if I were to take the "evidence" of suborning perjury in the Lewinsky matter that Starr has shown so far to any assistant U.S. attorney in the land, they would throw me out of the office (and my chief would probably take my badge). Ideology aside, let us look at the facts: 1) Lewinsky has been established, by testimonial corroboration and self-admission, as a liar. 2) Starr's best evidence, so far, has been gathered illegally. 3) Starr's second best witness, Lewinsky being the "best," is Linda Tripp, a woman with a political ax to grind. 4) There is no physical evidence to support any claims made by Starr, Tripp or Lewinsky. 5) Lewinsky has a history of mental problems. Any attorney who would take a case to court on the strength of this stuff is out of his tree! But I guess that shouldn't surprise us, as Ken Starr is only a titular attorney anyway. What he really is, is a political operative, operating above the law, conducting a distracting witch hunt with official congressional sanction. I love being a police officer, but I don't want to live in a police state. Where does this kind of stuff end? -- William V. Johnson SALON \| March 11, 1998