Letters to the Editor
TruthandConsequences
Published Letters: 27 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Soap operas instead of social commentary
[Read the article: TV's golden age]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Where's the real subversiveness? Guys like Rod Serling and Gene Roddenberry created their shows because they wanted to get social messages past the censors, and most TV writers of the age wanted to "say something" in what they did. Who today is using drama for subversive social commentary? Is anyone using their drama to take a shot at the futility of the Iraq war the way Star Trek did about Vietnam (the episode "A Private Little War" among others) in 1967? Today's shallow focus on relationships and such continuing storylines detracts from stories about larger social themes. Not to say there isn't such a place on TV for terrific relationship-driven drama -- I really enjoy The Sopranos -- it just dominates today except for Law & Order.
So often it seems like the new shows I love (Freaks and Geeks) die an early death anyway.
P.S. Deadwood? I don't care if it's supposed to be more realistic language for the time, I still can't watch the show without being distracted by it. It plays like the world's easiest drinking game -- take a shot for every obscenity and you won't last five minutes into the episode.
-
Obvious why she was hired
[Read the article: No Grace]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Somebody at CNN said "she's good TV," and that trumped everything, including questions of journalistic credibility. Stories/cases for discussion aren't chosen on journalistic merit but on what will "pull 'em in." Somebody needs to slap a fat slander suit on her for her belligerence and jumping to conclusions.
We need a Nancy Grace, watermelon? Because the murder cases of blonde teens aren't getting enough attention? How often does she cover murder cases involving non-whites?
-
Going according to the playbook
[Read the article: Gonzales to Congress: Move on]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If this is Gonzales' tactic, it is exactly according to their previously secret plan for handling the firings -- just ride out the storm, because they knew what they were doing was wrong. Congress needs to be wise to this. And it is more than just the incident, it is about the whole politicizing of the Justice Department, which is ongoing and pernicious and a danger to equal justice!
-
Let's see what this master manipulator can do
[Read the article: The greening of Fox]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Aside from the genuineness of his conversion, it's interesting how Murdoch allows a peek into how he can manipulate messages across all of his "platforms," including Fox News. If he intends to bring this to bear on climate change, what does this say about how he has been able to weave messages of conservative dogma through his media properties?
Murdoch may be a horrible messenger whose motives are suspect, but just as I begrudgingly give credit (for now) to Wal-Mart for trying to raise green awareness by, for instance, pushing fluorescent bulbs, I have to hope Murdoch can get an unvarnished message across that change needs to happen, and soon.
-
Weird that we expect so much of our anchors
[Read the article: No apologies, Katie Couric!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If it weren't for the journalistic chops of Edward R. Murrow, and later Walter Cronkite who created the "managing editor" position for himself, anchors would be no different than they are abroad, where they are simply "newsreaders" or "presenters."
By that foreign standard Katie Couric would be excellent, but here we expect some real reporting skill of our anchors, even if they are just reading a prompter for 22 minutes and asking questions piped into their earpiece from their producer. Unfortunately Couric lacks the journalistic gravitas (I hate the word but it fits here) of a Diane Sawyer or even Lara Logan.
-
Refusing to join the "reality-based community"
[Read the article: Webb amendment blocked]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How many times do these assholes need to be told that our military is burned out and at its breaking point before they would vote for something that would limit soldiers' physical and mental exhaustion? This is another classic case of disconnect because Lieberman and the spineless Republicans don't have the fates of their own kids at stake.
Webb's bill would have given National Guardsmen three years off for every one they served in Iraq. How is that unreasonable to grant to people who signed up thinking they would be helping out in crises on the home front, not getting sent to risk death in Iraq?
Let's face it, despite the rhetoric the troops come last because they don't have the lobbying clout of a McDonnell Douglas or a Grumman or any of the other big-bucks military contractors.
-
Longtime media war coverage pet peeves continue
[Read the article: Little outbursts of journalism -- what causes them?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Finally! It took Clark Hoyt of the brilliant Knight-Ridder D.C. bureau to wake people up to the bullshit conflating of "al Qaedas" that most of the media mindlessly regurgitated. But will these piece be enough to stop the practice if the White House continues to do it? I expect we'll see the inattentive media get careless on this again.
Unfortunately all over the news landscape today, coverage of the biggest story of the day fails to do what as you said, "convey what the government asserts and then, rather than merely leave it at that, subject those claims to critical scrutiny." That's the White House's 18-benchmark progress report.
Most mainstream media I've seen or read have just taken this lying administration's word for it -- AGAIN! How did the report go from a leak a few days ago that said ZERO benchmarks were met, to a whole lot of fudging that arrived at "progress" in eight of 18 benchmarks?