_______________NOTES FROM THE MAILROOM ...
	Since publishing the Henry Hyde story more than three weeks ago, Salon has been flooded with e-mails. Readers either strongly support our decision or denounce it as partisan politics -- there's no in-between on this issue. And the letters continue to pour in. The Starr-Clinton-Lewinsky saga continues to generate most of our mail. Gene Lyons' "Mistakes were made" and Joe Conason's "Hypocrite of the House" sparked an outpouring of opinion from conservatives and liberals alike, and many from both sides of the political fence praised David Horowitz's soul-searching column on Salon's decision to run the Hyde story. Our pieces on spanking also moved many readers to write, as did Lori Leibovich's essay on Monica Lewinsky as Jewish American Princess. But there's more to life than scandal and corporal punishment, and we hope to hear from you about other Salon stories, such as our new comic, The Dark Hotel, Andrew Leonard's piece on the demise of stock options and one intrepid adventurer's mushroom trip in Mexico. So keep those cards and letters coming in!
_______________MEANWHILE, BACK ON CAPITOL HILL ... BY MARK HERTSGAARD (10/07/98)
	I've been reflecting on Mark Hertsgaard's excellent article, and it occurred to me that maybe this is the reason a certain number of Democrats are turning against Clinton and going with the impeachment vote: Maybe the big corporations like GE are telling them that if they don't vote, don't expect campaign big bucks next time they run for office. They would sell out their president, their party and their mother -- if they couldn't get backed by the big contributors. Democrats complain about Clinton putting pressure on them, when it may not be Clinton at all who's putting the pressure on: Maybe it's the polluting GE and oil companies who are doing the threatening? Let's face it: If George Bush were in office, he'd sign that budget with all 49 anti-environmental riders without hesitation or conscience. This is the real battle behind the scenes. Clinton and Gore are the only ones protecting us, he vetoed the last budget, and he'll do it again. -- J. Marcus In reference to Mark Hertsgaard's article about the anti-environmental legislation passing congress under cover of the Lewinsky scandal: What shocks me is not that our elected constituents get bought, but just how cheap they are. Is $7,000 really all it takes to convince a senator to build a road through a national forest? How much air time can $7,000 buy a candidate anyway? I am totally amazed. -- Jordan Graf
_______________SEX SCANDALS CAN BE CONTAGIOUS BY AISIAH ABDULLAH (10/02/98)
	Toward the end of Aisiah Abdullah's article, the comment was made, "The dilemma of Malaysian journalists is that they have for too long allowed themselves to be used." I'm not sure that situation isn't occurring here in the United States. I have lived in various places in Florida and have noticed how the St. Petersburg Times and the Miami Herald appear to be open to various opinions. For the last six years, however, I've resided in Orlando and limited myself to the Orlando Sentinel. I noticed the paper's conservative leanings very early: Gone were the intellectual exchanges of controversial ideas that actually made you stop and think, so I stopped reading the editorials. I told myself it was because I had small children to raise and no longer had the time for it, but I knew it just became too predictable and, therefore, boring. Even the political cartoons appeared to favor the political right, and the surprise element that makes a cartoon amusing was gone. The last straw for me was when the Sentinel called for impeachment proceedings even before the Kenneth Starr Report was published. I should have known they would. Their polls are skewed terribly to the right, suggesting that the area favors the Republican point of view. But I have another explanation: It's because of the conservative leanings of the paper that it attracts conservatives, while moderate swing voters, like myself, and Democrats just cancel their subscriptions and look to the Internet for their information. Abdullah says, "So who needs the newspaper except for prurient interest?" Never has a truer statement been made. I've been using the Internet now for three weeks for news gathering, and have settled into a comfortable buffet style method of selecting my news. I read the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle/Examiner and the Washington Post for today's news. Then for tomorrow's news, I read Salon. I find Salon a necessity these days for anyone who demands a balanced look at the news. Your magazine provides a supplement that fills in the canyon-sized gaps in the reporting of the other papers. You've found a niche. Your future should be assured because there's no one out there in the mainstream papers that seems to understand that there are some of us that are aware that their reporting has become very one-sided. I'm not sure what has happened with the media in the last 10 years, but the change is startling. It seems that the old-time investigative reporters with integrity have been replaced with grad students who want the quick and easy sound bite so they slant their articles in a way that would meet the editor's approval. Gone is the wisdom of waiting for the second source, of deciding if something is truly newsworthy or if it is just the kind of novelty that sells tabloid papers. They have been giving us one side of the story as if they're the ultimate authorities and now have the gall to condescend to us and chastise us for not showing more outrage. I keep hearing the moralists (even Imus) lament the loss of outrage as if the fault lies with the American people. Nothing is mentioned about how past freedom of speech choices regarding pornography combined with how the media has exploited sex in the past for ratings has inured us to things of a sexual nature. We've seen so much, we don't shock easily anymore. But there's something else that is far more insidious. What has happened to the outrage from the mainstream press? Once bastions of civil rights and much-coveted freedom of speech, now they've silenced their own voices and instead have become amplifiers for any conservative that wants to spin a story. I know they're doing this because they think it's going to sell papers. What would be more effective in herding Americans back to the media for news if not the impeachment of a president? There is a sad conflict of interest here. A man's rights have been stripped from him and we are about to watch his crucifixion, and all the media can do is take pictures and report the details in a way that it will only add to the feeding frenzy. What ever happened to their outrage? I think we who have access to computers should fight back and cancel our newspaper subscriptions and refuse to watch the tabloid political talk shows unless they have credible experts that don't make a living as pundits. I intend to do one other thing as well, I'm not a registered Democrat, but will be voting for Democrats this election. I want to see the return to balance, and I know we won't get it until we send a warning shot across their bow on Election Day. -- Terry Scarlata I read with some amusement Aisiah Abdullah's description of the functioning's of the Malaysian "free" press: "While some societies look upon journalists as observers and the media as an arena for the debate of ideas (may the best idea win), I have long seen a different paradigm at work here: the media as a tool for 'nation building,' which means inculcating desirable values, spreading 'constructive information' and preserving political stability." I am currently working my way through Noam Chomskys' "Necessary Illusions" and find this description of the press all too fitting here in North America. Especially in juxtaposition with reader Timothy F. Sipples' comments on the Pakistan missile attack. In all his technical analysis of the correct methodology for launching cruise missile attacks I see no questioning of the basic premise: The United States has an unquestionable right to attack sovereign, independent countries in its "defence" of democratic freedoms. "Inculcated desirable values" indeed. -- Robert Lemieux SALON | Oct. 9, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| PRINCESS MONICA BY LORI LEIBOVICH

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor for publication, please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com. Letters sent by fax or "snail mail" are less likely to be accepted. Do not send attachments. Please include your full name and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours, so we can confirm your identity. This information will not be used for any reason other than verification and will not appear on the site. Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness. Brief letters are more likely to be published. Place the name of the article you are responding to in the subject heading of your e-mail. If you do not wish your letter to be published, please say so in the subject line. For more information on Salon's letters policy, click here.