Letters to the Editor
cooner
Published Letters: 20 Editor's Choice: 9
-
To No Name Given:
[Read the article: Idiot boxers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I share your frustration, especially with respect to channels unavailable in your area, and have often thought in the past an a la carte system of ordering pay channels would be a great thing. However, after a bit of thought, I'm not certain it would be such a good idea.
First of all, I don't think it would be significantly cheaper for consumers; in fact I think it could get a lot worse. Don't think for a moment that if you get 50 channels for $25 a month now, that each of those channels will be offered a la carte for 50 cents a month each. Seeing the way cable companies and markets in general operate, ordering only a small handful of channels will probably quickly take you right back up to the price of ordering full cable again anyway.
Secondly, I think it would be harmful to a lot of small but viable niche channels out there. One of the problems with network TV is that (within the bounds of decency laws) they compete with viewers, so they're generally driven to produce the most shocking, lowest-common-denominator programming they can. You can see this most clearly with news shows and reality TV. I believe that putting all the more specialized cable channels (History, Food, Sci Fi, etc.) on an a la carte system would force them to compete with each other, thereby forcing them to come up with more homogenous, shock-value, ratings-driven drudgery.
Personally I think a better route might be to encourage cable companies to offer more options in terms of what packages are available. For example (and most relevantly), they could create a family-friendly programming block, including only channels considered up to current decency standards, perhaps putting a nighttime block on some channels (for example, blocking Adult Swim off Cartoon Network) for those customers.
Just my $.02, though.
-
Bush vs. RNC
[Read the article: The Tom DeLay and Dick Cheney show]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree ... I was going to say, is that the Republican National Convention calendar or the George W. Bush Ass-Kissing Calendar?
I know it's no fun to say it, but there are some decent, hard-working Republicans out there on both the federal and state and local levels. I've found there are a lot of Republicans out there who disapprove of Bush, or only support him grudgingly. There are plenty of Republican principles and ideas that aren't even in and of themselves bad ideas.
It's sad to see the RNC so wholeheartedly put Bush-Rovian politics above actually dealing with issues, and ignore and diminish those moderate and responsible representatives they could be highlighting and encouraging in their ranks.
-
LWW vs. BBR
[Read the article: All quiet on the gay western front]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Personally I find all the ferver of comparing "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" against "Brokeback Mountain" sort of weird, and the assumption that the two movies will have little audience crossover, although that may well be true.
But I grew up reading the Chronicles of Narnia, know them almost word-for-word; a friend of mine at Disney started telling me about some of the preproduction he was seeing over a year ago, and I've been excited about it ever since. I'm also gay and have been looking forward to seeing Brokeback Mountain since I first heard of it. I guess I don't fit their typical demographic charts, eh?
Still, as ridiculously self-evident as it is to "predict" LWW on over 3,000 screens will beat BBR on 5 screens, it's frustrating to know that my $10 to see LWW this weekend will be tallied in the "moral" right-wing's trumped up victory dance next week.
-
... But who do we "vote" our $50 towards?
[Read the article: How to fix campaign financing forever for $50]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This sounds like an interesting proposal, but it seems rather convoluted ... and there's one serious questionI have: How do I, as an average voter, know who to contribute my $50 to? Presumably this raising and distributing of funds has to take place BEFORE the campaign season leading up to the election. How do I look at a list of names I haven't heard anything about yet and know who to earmark my contributions to? Doesn't that give the incumbent a tremendous advantage for funding, since his/her name will be far more recognized than any potential rivals?
One obvious solution would be to come up with some fact sheets to outline each potential candidate's views on various issues, perhaps give them a chance to make a statement or introduce themselves to the voters. But if we're going put that much effort into educating the public ... then why not save a massive step and just do that for the election itself, as we should probably be doing anyway?
I know this is an incredibly complex issue, and prying control out of the hands of those who control the money will be a difficult thing ... but I think I would much prefer more straightforward solutions that have been suggested, such as limiting the length of the campaign season or finding ways to ensure that all candidates get equal unbiased face time, and making sure that voters have easy access to a record of each candidate's positions on issues and voting records that are untainted by advertising or muckraking ...