It’s a Bull Market for Happy Hayseeds and Humble Hacks

Greetings, stockholders.

We haven’t met recently, so I’ll update you on the company’s activities.

There was that recent column, for example, about KCET’s Huell Howser injecting himself into a spat about Long Beach’s plan to raze 11 historic buildings on its just-closed naval station to make way for a new shipping terminal. The mail was mostly negative, some of it for the wrong reasons.

When readers don’t get the message, the messenger’s at fault. So I accept full blame for those angry readers who incorrectly inferred criticism from my description of former Tennessean Howser as a nonjournalist and “hayseed” who doesn’t belong in the big city. No, no, it was sarcasm. I meant just the opposite.

Yet most who did get the correct message were peeved, too, and a couple of those observations appear here with two other letters about recent columns.

Now that the business portion of the meeting is concluded, the refreshments:

I see you have written another glowing tribute to Huell Howser, this time regarding his protest of a scheduled demolition plan in Long Beach. Naivete is not an adjective I would ever apply to you, but, in your pieces on the oh-so-corny Howser, you always lapse into downright puffery. I call the phenomenon damning with weird praise.

ROBIN C. VAN ALSTINE

Moorpark

I do not doubt that Howser has sincere intentions. I do doubt that as a serious “journalist” he is fully aware of both sides of this Long Beach story. I am not saying he is right or wrong but I am saying that it is wrong to insert oneself into a city controversy without hearing and reporting both sides of the story. This is not just an issue of saving “historic” buildings on a Navy base.

CAROL L. GREENBERG

Long Beach

I laughed out loud over your recent column recounting the synergies that Disney engages in to squeeze as much juice out of the lemon as possible. It is not only a matter of scale in devoting an hour of “Good Morning America” to flog the latest Disney opening, there is the matter of KABC radio’s Michael Jackson. The idea of shipping this intelligent and articulate man down to Florida to do the same thing is outrageously funny in a gross sort of way. Here he is, pulled out of context, and now finds himself just another flack for Michael Eisner!

I can’t remember if it was P.T. Barnum or H.L. Mencken who observed that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. Disney, Time-Warner and, most egregiously of all, Rupert Murdoch built their media empires on this basic principle. One doesn’t have to be an intellectual to be appalled at the way these three organizations both shape and profit from a culture ever dumbing down.

P.B. HILLMAN

Los Angeles

There is a scene in “It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World” in which Spencer Tracy accidentally tosses his hat out a window. Cut to Jerry Lewis behind the wheel, spying the hat laying helplessly on the street. A wicked smile creeps across his face and, with a maniacal glint in his eye, he hits the gas, swerves across several lanes of traffic, flattens the hat, then speeds off, crackling hysterically at his accomplishment.

I sympathized with that hat as I read your [Oct. 9] column. Leading with a review of the “Murder One” premiere, you cross one lane to get to Stanley Tucci, another to get to “Big Night,” yet another to get to [Tucci’s “Big Night” co-star] Tony Shalhoub and then, seeing “Wings” laying in the street, you speed up and crush it. Regarding the season premiere of “Wings” you write: “Although Shalhoub is merely a supporting player, he provided most of the opening show’s few rewarding moments. . . . They were so few, in fact, that I was reminded why I rarely watch ‘Wings.’ Well, different strokes. . . .”

As one of the executive producers of “Wings,” I enjoyed seeing one of our cast members receive a compliment in print. Tony is a consummate pro, a pleasure to work with and write for, as is our entire cast. But why, mid-compliment, do you speed up, veer across several lanes and pull a drive-by on our premiere episode and (with an extra turn of the wheel) the entire series?

If you’re going to review our premiere, then responsibly review it. This kind of backhanded shot is demeaning to all of us who work on the show, and a little surprising, particularly coming from a respected--what are you folks calling yourselves these days? Television oracle? Culture guardian?

Over the years, I’ve read many reviews of “Wings.” Some positive, others not so. I’ve always appreciated the good notices and taken the negative ones in stride, simply figuring they’re written by ill-informed cretins with no taste, an ax to grind and a Freudian need to show off by displaying some high-wire verbal acrobatics (you know, I’m beginning to enjoy this gratuitous stuff).

OK, that was unfair. After all, one can’t sum up years of a critic’s work from one review. Any more than one can can evaluate eight years of a series with a few allegedly clever remarks.

Frankly, reading your column reminded me why I rarely bother reading it. Although there have been a few rewarding moments, more often than not, you cock your rapier wit, load both barrels, take aim at some broad postulate--”war is bad” or “televised political debates are unspontaneous”--and blast away. The insights are so few, in fact, that I honestly don’t understand why they’re in print at all. I suppose some people get something out of the column. Well, different strokes. . . .

IAN GURVITZ

Hollywood