_______________ MISFIRE BY JONATHAN BRODER AND JOE CONASON (06/08/98)

How do you convince an apparently uncaring mainstream American media to investigate this appalling situation? The seeming indifference of the New York Times and the Washington Post to any information even remotely questioning the antics of Starr and Co. is unfathomable. As even Frank Rich posited in his op-ed piece for the New York Times, why didn't the mainstream media question Starr's shocking and unsettling comparison of himself to Atticus Finch? It seemed to me to be a telling moment: shining Starr, our savior, even if we don't yet understand or appreciate his Herculean efforts on our behalf. Now is the time for Salon and other responsible publications to keep up a steady barrage of two-or-more-source truthful and complete reportage. Like a small flower that slowly pushes through and cracks a cement sidewalk, eventually the truth will triumph -- hopefully rendering useless Starr and others of his ilk. -- Adam Friedman I'm a regular Salon reader, and I just wanted to say that it seems a bit strange that you guys are focusing so much attention on R. Emmett Tyrrell. He's not an elected official; he's a magazine editor. It's not all that hard to connect the dots: Someone at Salon doesn't like what Tyrrell has to say. Salon is a liberal rag; the Spectator is a conservative rag. Salon is trying to cause IRS problems for the editor of a conservative rag. It's obvious, it's lame, it's in bad taste and it makes me think that the things he is saying must be cutting pretty close to the bone. I'm actually going to pick up the latest copy of the Spectator (as a result of this) and see exactly what it is he has to say. I intend to read your Web site less often. It gets boring when you can predict the articles before they appear. -- Christopher Odom Thanks are due Jonathan Broder and Joe Conason for their thorough examination of how American Spectator editor R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is apparently enjoying employment perks that, under current tax laws governing nonprofit foundations, should not be his to accept. Conservatives have lately been castigating President Clinton and other Democrats for allegedly playing fast and loose with campaign-finance laws. Yet where are their wails of outrage when it comes to Tyrrell's receiving free trips to Europe and a subsidy for the cost of his Virginia house, or when the Christian Coalition acts as a political lobbying organization for the GOP, in obvious violation of its own tax-exempt status? I hope the Internal Revenue Service hasn't been neutered so by recent concerted attacks from Republicans that it won't charge with the full might of its authority against Tyrrell, the Christian Coalition and other tax manipulators. These ridiculous hypocrites deserve a good lashing before the law. -- Jeff Pierce Seattle I am puzzled by the identification of the wedding ceremony of R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. as Catholic. How does this enhance my understanding of Tyrrell's actions or those of the American Spectator's foundation? Perhaps the authors should have told us what Tyrrell's heritage is as well. The inclusion of such a "factoid," to my mind, only serves to reinforce stereotypes that have no place in a publication such as yours. -- Thomas J. Coyle I just had to praise yesterday's article about the American Spectator. But when I logged on to today's Salon article I was overjoyed that at least somebody is not letting this nasty, vile person (R. Emmett Tyrrell) get away with all the lies his magazine publishes. I just want to let you know that you guys at Salon have the BEST magazine online and in print. Keep up the fabulous reporting. -- Luis Vazquez N E X T+P A G E+| Living under the knife