Interview Ambushes

Howard Rosenberg’s critique of the George Bush-Dan Rather interview was quite revealing from the standpoint that the clubbing a segment of the print media laid on the television branch might just as easily been said about itself “Whose Ambush Was It, Anyway?” Jan. 27).

He labeled this event an “ambush interview.” However, this was a live event with both parties present. My impression of The Times is that, too frequently, it tells only its side of an issue, and when a correction or apology should be made, it’s not done or is buried.

Rosenberg criticized the fact that CBS agreed to an unedited interview. I can understand that The Times finds the concept of equal time for an opposing opinion alien to its way of doing business.

He also mentions the hysterical tone present in the interview. If you wish to find hysterical tone in print, particularly in The Times, read an editorial concerning Reagan, Rose Bird, Contra aid; read Paul Conrad, or Rosenberg; or any pro-labor diatribe.

The most obvious example of the pot calling the TV black is Rosenberg’s criticizing Rather for assuming the roles of “judge and jury” and for assuming the role of “America’s shrieking ayatollah of truth.”

Come on L.A. Times, know thyself.

W.E. HUDSON

Arcadia