The Nation letters section

[Spintronic]

It seems to me somehow unprofessional how in the letters section of The Nation, the author of an article is always given the opportunity to respond to a letter(s) that disagree with his or her opinion. I mean, the opportunity given to the author to state his or her opinion in a full article is far better than whatever a letter writer can possibly fit into a printable size letter. Can't The Nation trust its readership to see a letter as trite or simplistic or moronic instead of letting the author indulge their own vanity and need for "the last word?" I mean, how often do you see Brooks or Ivans write responses to letters in the NYT letters section? How often do the NYTs, Newsweek, or other magazines do this?

Cockburn's reply to Dershwitz was longer than the letter itself. Add that to the original article. If Cockburn wrote non-flattering article about you, would you even bother responding? Should the Clark campaign respond to Taibbi (on a side note, check out this interview with said "writer" from my alma mater's literary magazine)?

I can see times where a response is appropriate, but for every letter? I just seems the same to me as O'Reilly kicking off a guest and then talking about him for the next 2 weeks.

Anyone else have an opinion?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

1. I let my subscription to The Nation lapse

during the 1990s, when Alexander Cockburn and Christopher Hitchens got into such an excessive pissing contest that their diatribes and counter-diatribes against each other started taking up a significant portion of the magazine.

I hope they don't let their letter writers get out of control again.

[durutti]

2. I love The Nation.

But Z Magazine is my favorite. I really have no use for The Progressive, Utne Reader, or Mother Jones.

[Red_Storm]

3. Why don't you like The Progressive........

just curious......