SHOCK & UNSHOCKED

The only thing I found shocking about “Shock Radio” was The Times’ timidity in printing a representative sampling of the material that apparently justified doing the story in the first place.

This spineless behavior was exhibited in such phrases as “so full of potentially offensive material,” “X-Rated,” “obscene,” “too graphic to be printed in a daily newspaper,” and “unsuitable for a family paper.”

I’m curious, can any of these terms be defined? They certainly haven’t been by the Federal Communications Commission, whose job it is. I’m reluctant to let these judgments be made for me by Goldstein, or The Times.

Expediency has now entered the journalistic lexicon of The Times: Words that should be right at home with “least objectionable content,” “censorship” and “maximized demographics.” To say these concepts are diametrically opposed to terms like “freedom of the press” and the “public’s right to know and decide for itself” is obvious.

TONY LYNN

Leucadia