I’ve Had My Say, Readers Get Theirs

At last, after a long absence, during which millions of readers (well, two or three, anyway) relentlessly lobbied for its resumption, it’s b-a-a-a-a-a-a-ck. Yes, loud cheers now for our old friend from the 1980s:

The Letters Column.

This batch of letters includes responses to columns about Rush Limbaugh’s syndicated TV series, the Michael Jackson and Heidi Fleiss stories and the execution of David Edwin Mason.

Let the standing ovation begin!

*

Just about the time I think it’s safe to read the L.A. Times, you come along with another of your whiny little diatribes about a talented person. Your remarks about Rush Limbaugh, while typical of the liberal, truth-fearing dominant media culture, are at best pompous and sophomoric.

You write your little hack articles about such weighty items as “Aladdin” or whether John Larroquette projects a star-like aura that you could follow for a long distance. Holy cow- zaboom! What punch! What great commentary. Your pathetic screechings would be funny if it weren’t for your evocation of the Fairness Doctrine.

Why not just admit you’re jealous of Limbaugh--and anyone else with real talent, for that matter--and research the total number of media columns and minutes dedicated to liberal viewpoints . . . and see if all the conservatives can’t start complaining to the FCC? Just remember, justice is a two-edged sword, and “fair” also means according to the rules.

ROGER STRANO

Sherman Oaks

*

I was delighted to see your lengthy column on Rush Limbaugh. Obviously he is having an impact on liberals and you feel the need to give him some space in an attempt to discredit his views and presentation. Be assured that the thinking audience can appreciate Rush’s common sense spiced with humor and can see through a bleeding-heart reaction to success.

GEORGE MESSEMER

Newport Beach

*

The thrust of your comments seems to embrace the “thinking” of those who advocate the Fairness Doctrine. I don’t believe you support it, but when it comes to Limbaugh, you seem to be willing to put aside your better sense.

The question of liberalism in the media doesn’t even enter into the argument (though to deny it exists is to be brain-dead). Government simply cannot mandate what it considers to be “fairness,” since that is a subjective concept. To do so is to accept Big Brother.

WILLIAM SINGLETON

Los Angeles

*

You missed the point. The point is not whether it is ethical to try and convict Michael Jackson on TV. The point is whether he did it or not. Can’t you see that?

That’s all people care about--whether Heidi Fleiss serviced stars or not--not that she gets more space than the war in Bosnia, not that tabloid entertainment “reporters” keep breaking the Jackson story like CNN during the Gulf War.

Did he do it or not? The public wants to know. Don’t you?

LAURA BROWN

Pasadena

*

I expect that as a television critic you did not feel called on to add commentary on print media concerning Michael Jackson. The whole membership of public information is subject to censure. Why do you all cite “the public’s right to know”? Why does anyone have the right to delve into a person’s private affairs simply because that person is known to the public? If there is an indictment or a conviction, it is a different matter. But what has happened to the right to privacy?

RAY BRACY

Tustin

*

Continue to put the blame on the news directors, where it belongs. They’re the real morons in this video epidemic. The on-camera dummies who hold forth outside the gates of San Quentin or the cameramen who shoot the vacant Jackson ranch from above and capture Heidi showing bra in the courtroom are only doing what they’ve been told to do.

The news directors, the mental runts who post them on their deathwatch and lay these courtroom traps--they’re the real yokels in this farce.

KEN WEIGEL

Van Nuys

*

It is my belief that Michael Jackson will be exonerated. When that day comes, it seems to me that every one of these network and local newscasters will owe Mr. Jackson major apologies . . . on air.

I’d like to see Paula Zahn interview Dr. Joyce Brothers, asking her how we, as parents, can explain to our chidren why adults allow something that is only rumor--with no substantial evidence as of this writing--to fly out of our mouths, almost gleefully, trashing a beloved public figure.

CAROL LYNN FARWELL

Tujunga

*

I must disagree with your generally laudatory remarks regarding the coverage on Channel 4. The airing of six or seven stories dealing with allegations in an hour--often stories best-suited to the National Enquirer--is nothing short of overkill.

When an otherwise solid reporter, Patrick Healy, holds up papers and cites “these allegations against Michael Jackson,” I am reminded of Joseph McCarthy and his infamous list of names.

JOHN REEDLEY

Los Angeles

*

Your stinging parody of the media blitz on Heidi Fleiss offered some sensible comic relief, yet you failed to address the culpability of the L.A. Times in this journalistic overkill. Not only did The Times actually launch the blitz (with an absurdly overblown pandering front-page story on Fleiss) but most of its subsequent daily pieces on the case (though not your own) have duly noted this fact with pride.

MARSHA KINDER

Los Angeles

*

In all honesty, where do you have the right to complain about media treatment of David Edwin Mason’s execution at San Quentin when you wanted to go even further and put all such executions on television? That ranks over any red-carpet treatment you have complained about. Did you conveniently forget this fact, or are you just a fool?

JESSE LEVINE

North Hollywood

*

I heartily disagree that HBO’s “Laurel Avenue” was “television’s classiest . . .” treatment of contemporary African-Americans to date.

I wonder what makes you feel qualified to make this kind of evaluation? You are not African-American, and I feel safe to say you have not been a longtime resident of such a neighborhood. On the other hand, I am black and in a middle-class family and have always lived in a middle-class neighborhood. “Laurel Avenue” is not the norm. Stay with what you really know.

LORRAINE HARRIS

Los Angeles

*

Quoting an author in a favorable review of his work (“The John Larroquette Show”), then never mentioning his name is so typical of the rancid journalism displayed by yourself and the paper in your coverage of the entertainment industry as to be almost beneath contempt. Almost.

I do wish you’d quietly go away. You would not be missed.

CHARLES A. McDANIEL

Hollywood