OK, all two of you that read this will by now have noticed a rather long delay between posts here. I’m still trying to figure out where I want to be going with this. I think it’s a bit of a Catch-22 situation with readership. Of course, any bloggy type person wants readers, but of course if any newspapery/magaziney editor type people became readers, they would (I think) be obligated not to print my letters.
The obviously solution, which several friends have suggested, is to write the letters to the editor under a pseudonym. That makes sense, of course, but I really don’t love that idea. Perhaps it’s pure narcissim, but much of the point of the blog was to see MY name in print, not a nom de plume. (And I have to say here that this is definitely the first time I’ve ever written nom de plume in a sentence. I like it. I’m going to try to do it more often.)
I’d like to go out and toot (or tweet) my horn about Mrs. Dogood, but I can’t see how that won’t eventually prevent me from ever getting any letters printed. If anyone has any brilliant ideas, I’m all ears.
Oooh, it seems that the fitness mags are totally into my fawning praise. I just got this little note from Self:
Thank you for contacting Self Magazine. We are considering your comments for publication, and we’d like you to get back to us with your permission to use your:
1. complete name
…as you’d like them to appear in the magazine.
We’d greatly appreciate if you could provide us with your daytime telephone number in case our Research Department needs to contact you for any reason. (Your number will not be shared with anyone. It will solely be used for research purposes.)
Please keep in mind that there is always the possibility that your letter could be edited for clarity and/or space constraints, or excluded because of other last minute changes.
In the meantime, your comments have been forwarded to the appropriate editors, so you can be sure that your voice has been heard. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your interest in Self.
Interesting that they are exactly as easy and transparent as they appear to be.
Newsweek published an article called “Rebranding Hate in the Age of Obama.” Is this seriously a thing? The KKK is back in business? Sometimes I can’t believe that such division exists in this one country. Truly this was a thought provoking article. But wowsa did the photo editor do a lousy job.
This photo by Bruce Gilden took up nearly two full pages of the four page article:
The photographer will probably win some award, but if I’m quickly flipping through the magazine, I’m thinking this photo belongs with an article about a new WWII documentary. The images do not in any way communicate the immediacy and horror of learning that despite that we have an overwhelmingly popular black president there are still folks out there who would rather see him dead than respect our democracy.
Here’s the letter I wrote:
Eve Conant’s article about the resurgence of white supremacists was shocking and terrifying. The accompanying photos did not, however, serve the story well. The choice to print the photos in black and white, rather than in color, served to give them a nostalgic feel. The black and white photo of a boy with military-style shirt and a buzz cut looks like a shot from a history book. Color would have better demonstrated that this is a current problem with urgent consequences.
Really, is it just me?