Many of you have written over the last several days about the story published
 in Salon.com, "Rabid Watchdog," by Jennifer Liberto.  We appreciate all of the
 kind and thoughtful letters of support for MWO.

 As for reactions to the Salon piece, reader letters by and large reflected disgust
 above all, along with mixtures of considerable bemusement, amusement, and shock.

 MWO shared all of those reactions, particularly shock and disbelief.  Having held
 Salon in high esteem for much of its excellent political and news commentary and
 coverage, we were stunned that it would allow publication of a piece so exemplary
 of each and every one of MWO's primary media criticisms.  We, like many of you,
 believed Salon "got it," but have been roundly disabused of that notion, as no such
 argument can be made with a straight face, post "Rabid Watchdog."

 The piece was a dismal failure for Salon in every regard, and although MWO
 no longer believes Salon is distinguishable in its fundamental outlook from most of
 the mainstream media, we do believe they must certainly be embarrassed in hindsight.

 From what MWO could glean from the interviews conducted with us and others,
 Salon hoped to publish an expose about the "mysteries" of MWO, namely answering
 the questions of who writes the anonymous material on the site and who funds it.

 MWO does not and will not disclose that information, and made that clear in
 our interview, which we may publish soon in its entirety.  So the only answers
 Salon had to work with were a few names of people no one has ever heard
 of, and a comment from Tucker Carlson to the effect that he probably has
 heard of those not named.  Again, given our opinion of Salon.com operative
 at the time, MWO fully expected the story would not be published, at least
 not with a focus on those aspects emphasized in the interview.

 In other words, there was no story to tell, at least not the one Salon had
 hoped to tell.  But there were still four pages to fill with something, anything,
 and did it ever show.

 We got a rehash of the Aaron Brown fiasco.  We got advice on how to
 undermine the anonymity of people whose speech we don't like, though none
 of which would ever be useful to anyone attempting to determine the identity
 of any MWO anonymous contributor.  We got astonishingly ignorant and
 illogical assertions about anonymity as it relates to credibility.

 We got an embarrassingly thin, rambling, effort to turn a collection of
 minutiae into an exciting, front page exposé.  We got something utterly
 common and predictable from an attempt to be unpredictable.

 It should be added that there is a certain value in the piece, but, as
 mentioned, only as a classic example of all that we and you seek to expose
 every day.  (It should also be noted that the piece steered thousands upon
 thousands of new visitors to MWO, and the feedback from the vast majority
 of those who wrote was positive and enthusiastic.  However, MWO would
 have preferred Salon had done the right thing and not run it.)

 Before MWO gets to the point, we'd like to address readers' specific critiques
 regarding the story itself and Salon's subsequent handling of its journalistic
 failure - one that for many has marked Salon's shark-jumping.

 Perhaps the most offensive example of all was the reader who forwarded
 Salon's response to his cancellation notification.  Although this reader
 articulated his reason for not continuing his subscription - Salon's reply to him
 ignored his concerns and instead proceeded to very "civilly" insult his
 intelligence and truthfulness by accusing him of intolerance of other
 viewpoints.  Salon even compared his reaction to that of Limbaugh-listening
 Dittomonkeys.  The response was contemptuous, arrogant, condescending,
 irrational (this subscriber was already "tolerating" David Horowitz, etc.) - and
 most of all, magnificently, shamefully, shockingly clueless.

 Along the same lines of ungraciousness and defensiveness, Salon also
 published a collection of letters reacting to the piece.  Some excellent ones,
 to be sure, although for some reason, many very, very good ones that were
 also highly and effectively critical of Salon did not make the cut.  We have
 several of those, and will publish them soon.

 But the first letter featured contained an accusation that MWO had altered a
 theater review submitted by a reader to reflect an ad hominem attack on
 Andrew Sullivan that was not in the submission.  We and our readers have
 been paying attention to various tactics and tendencies of the media long
 enough to recognize when something is likely done for a purpose, and
 featuring this letter first, in our view and that of many readers, reflected a
 great deal of pettiness and juvenilia on Salon's part in reaction to its own
 embarrassment.

 What a "questionable" thing for MWO to do, after all - changing a reader
 submission for its own ends!  And what perfect "supporting evidence" for
 Salon's failed piece of journalism, the underlying claim of which was that MWO
 should be marginalized.  That is, it would be questionable and perfect if it had
 happened.

 MWO criticized Salon for not having asked us about any changes made to the
 submission.  Salon responded by saying the accusation was an "opinion" so no
 such research was required on its part before publishing such a defamatory
 charge, adding that it reviewed the information provided and determined the
 claim was "fair."  MWO then provided Salon the letter writer's subsequent
 "opinion" that he had been mistaken about his own original review and MWO's
 actions, and asked for a clarification in Salon's pages.

 In other words, we met Salon's implied criteria of demonstrating the "opinion"
 was put forth in error.  Salon has not responded.

 As for the substance [sic] of the piece itself, there was no shortage of
 criticism there.

 The article began with a description of the Aaron Brown episode, useless in
 itself as it was an aberration from the course of most media activism initiated
 by MWO.  The unfolding of events was weird and inexplicable to both MWO
 and Aaron Brown, for whom MWO has had mostly praise and who begrudgingly
 finally admits in the piece that the existence of MWO is better than its
 nonexistence.  At any rate, that episode ended without incident and both
 "sides" went away scratching their heads.  Certainly not a good example of
 what usually happens here, but nonetheless selected for prominent feature in
 the Salon story - presumably because it involved a prominent media
 personality who agreed to talk about it, rather than a network, newspaper or
 other nonpersonal entity - and as all readers know, personality and celebrity
 fascinate the Kool Kids mainstream media much more so than, ew, substance.

 The story risibly referred to Brown's letter to MWO as "remarkably
 magnanimous," (yeah.. we know) and linked to the letter.  Strange, since
 MWO had also provided dozens of letters to Brown proving his
 characterization of the letters received as "cookie cutter," rude, or obscene,
 was somewhat overstated - yet there was no link provided to those.  (MWO
 had to take it upon itself to reset the anchor linked from Salon to the top of
 the page containing all information on the Brown episode, including his
 letter.)  We say "strange," but it wasn't strange at all, not in the context of
 this "story," which betrayed a shameful pro-establishment media bias not only
 in this instance but in its description of the Steno Sue Schmidt episode.
 We're talking self-parody-level establishment cluelessness here.  (Not known
 for its own subtlety, MWO allows for the possibility the piece was satire and
 we missed it. If so, we apologize.)

 From there, the article became extremely incoherent and, if you can imagine,
 even less relevant.  It went on to offer names of people involved or at one
 time involved with Media Whores Online and other sites.  Names of past or
 present participants no one has ever heard of.  It went on to question
 whether an anonymous source can be taken seriously, an astonishingly silly
 question whose extremely simple answer ("it depends") can be grasped by a
 Bush voter.

 MWO had provided much material in our interview on the long history and
 tradition of anonymous writing in America, including excerpts from the US
 Supreme Court case protecting anonymous speech as crucial to not only free
 speech in general but particularly to a free press.

 We noted that no supporter has ever criticized our anonymity, and those that
 have did so in bad faith after having been offended by content - that they did
 not and could not claim had violated any established standard of free speech.

 MWO pointed out that those journalists who cite our material are not
 obligated to proclaim their perceptions about the ideology of the site, as was
 suggested in the piece, if they have checked out the material responsibly.
 We also were amused by that implication, recognizing that if such disclosure
 became a standard, nearly every article or editorial referenced from the
 "mainstream" establishment media should contain identifiers such as, "the
 right-leaning Washington Post reports.."  Naturally and predictably, however,
 a pro-mainstream biased piece such as this one would not hold anyone but
 perceived "Clinton-defender" journalists accountable to such a standard.

 As for the general question of disclosure as a guarantor of credibility - nearly
 everything appearing in every mainstream newspaper today is signed.  Need
 we say more?

 Finally, to the point.

 Many of you forwarded your letters notifying Salon of your decision to cancel
 your subscriptions.  You noted the Liberto piece as the last straw.  When
 MWO recommended subscribing to Salon several months ago, we recall many
 did so reluctantly.  Therefore it is no surprise that such an egregious lapse as
 "Rabid Watchdog" would lead to cancellations.

 We wholeheartedly agree with every one of your criticisms of the Liberto
 piece and Salon's decision to run it.  Criticisms like "dishonest," "sleazy,"
 "smarmy," "silly," "seedy," "unintelligent," "juvenile," "unsubstantial,"
 "amateur."  We also agree that Salon gravely insulted the intelligence of its
 readership in running the story and in its reaction to critics.

 MWO has no issue with valid criticism.  We could have written a 3000 word
 negative critique ourselves about MWO - focused on legitimately debatable
 questions about the site's approach.  So we won't spend much time on
 entertaining Salon's kneejerk defensive reaction that the criticisms stem from
 an intolerance for legitimate criticism.

 MWO readers have no problem identifying red herrings and efforts to
 marginalize disguised as a legitimate "story" about media standards and
 practices.  We've seen it too many times, the most recent stellar example
 prior to "Rabid Watchdog" being the Washington Post's Ombudsman's
 "response" to the paper's transgressions as exposed by MWO.  Salon's
 revealing itself as sharing the "pack" mentality was disappointing indeed.

 MWO has no way of knowing who is most responsible for the story's overall
 cheapness.  That is, certain things about the interview process, the story itself,
 and subsequent handling of criticism seem to suggest an original direction that
 might have been changed by an editor or editors.  Other aspects suggest Liberto
 herself might not have felt or expressed reluctance about going forward with the
 piece as it was.   There is simply no way of knowing - even if the names are
 provided.  Ultimately in any case, names are irrelevant and Salon.com's
 credibility was diminished by the decision to publish it.

 But as media activists, the real question always remains:  To what degree
 have the newly discovered journalistic standards of the "personalities" behind
 Salon manifested in its political and news coverage to date?

 The answer in our view is:  significantly more since before the publication of
 "Rabid Watchdog," but on balance, Salon remains a cut above most others in
 the mainstream in its news/political coverage.

 MWO urged its readership many months ago to subscribe to Salon Premium,
 when the site's stock price was flatlining.  Many of you who contacted us
 saying you subscribed also said you did so reluctantly.  You cited your dismay
 that Salon would feature not only conservative extremist writers regularly -
 but such lousy and/or hysterical conservative extremist writers like David
 Horowitz and Camille Paglia.  While some did get past this problem and
 subscribed anyway, it was also the dealbreaker for many.  Now for others, it's
 the Liberto piece that represents Salon's selling of its soul.

 Back then, we argued that it is precisely because of Salon's selection of awful
 conservative writers that the idea of subsidizing them was much easier to live
 with.  Who pays attention to David Horowitz, after all?  But we have a more
 difficult time justifying continued support for those "borderline" subscribers in
 light of the MWO piece, since it is revelatory of several disturbing and familiar
 media practices many committed whorewatchers simply cannot abide,
 regardless of the frequency or infrequency with which they appear.

 But for our part, on balance, we continue to support Salon.com.  Just as it
 features some of the worst right-wing writers in the nation, and now it's safe
 to say it also features some of the worst journalism conceivable on occasion
 - it also features some of the best journalists and journalism.

 We'd like to offer five reasons to reconsider your subscription cancellations:

   1.Joe Conason
   2.Eric Boehlert (unmatched media analysis and reporting)
   3.Tom Tomorrow (you know you'd miss Cheney's snarl and Usurper's vapid stare)
   4.Salon's Table Talk Forum (populated with the most brilliant, astute writers on
      the Internet - many of whom are.. gasp.. anonymous)
   5.David Talbot (for his five-star out-of-the-park articles, that is)

 There are several other MWO/reader favorites, such as Josh Marshall, Arianna
 Huffington, Brendan Nyhan, Anthony York, Todd Gitlin.

 No other publication features as high a concentration of Exiles, and we
 believe these powerful writers and contributors to Salon.com justify continued
 support.  Although we are concerned about whether the Liberto piece is an
 aberration or a trend, the jury is still out and as of now MWO would not like
 to see Salon disappear.  It might have moved onto the cusp of whoredom,
 but has not yet fallen off the precipice.  But MWO respects that every
 individual reader draws his or her line where he or she chooses, and welcomes
 all criticism of and disagreement with our view on this issue.

 "Rabid Watchdog" was utterly appalling to all.  But the Media Horse didn't take
 it personally.  Remember, the Media Horse above all contemns the
 egomaniacal media whore culture that is destroying our democracy, and as
 such, strives to separate the personal from the practical.

 Media Horse is a horse with no name.  It has a job to do and disdains the
 Show Horse that prances around the ring with its blinders on, seeking blue
 ribbons from the judges.

 The Media Horse wants to pull the plow.  It doesn't want a nickname from the
 Circus Chimp, and would check itself into the glue factory if it "earned" one.
 The Show Horse and the Hired Hack disdain the Media Horse: a Media Horse
 doesn't exist to promote its name and pedigree or shill for its owner - it has a
 purpose.

 Shame on you Salon, and good luck.