Rosenberg Versus KCBS News Team

When it comes to KCBS’ “I-Team,” there’s no doubt that some good may result from exposing shoddy mechanics or health hazards at restaurants, but in going “undercover” to get the story, its news gatherers must also set up an elaborate chain of lies and misrepresentations. If a report is built upon a chain of lies, then exactly how are we viewers to know when the truth begins? (“Critic Should Practice What He Preaches,” by Michael Tuck, Counterpunch, May 18).

If we were to review CBS News’ policy regarding the use of hidden cameras, my guess is that the guidelines would tell us that their use should be employed only when less intrusive methods of reporting are unavailable. But, in practice, the pressure to deliver ratings is making undercover reports not the last option, but for many stations, the first. When KCBS aired its hidden camera expose on local restaurant sanitation practices, it generated the station’s highest news ratings in 10 years.

Letting the market dictate may be a fine practice in some sectors of a democratic society, but it appears to be ruinous when applied to the broadcast news business. It means the ultimate consideration will always be an economic one. And if the voyeuristic stories generated with the use of stealth technology bolster ratings, voyeuristic stories you shall get.

JEFF DUCLOS

Hermosa Beach

While TV critic Howard Rosenberg has written some pretty stupid stuff (his recent dissertation on Jim Lehrer, for one), he’s also written much-needed and much-appreciated critiques. And while we all have a right to take him to task for something of less than sterling judgment, criticism of him is ludicrous coming from such a big mouth as Michael Tuck. If ever there were a TV reader who has lost all sense of proportion in his own job, it’s Tuck, whose inane comments following each and every news report on his CBS desk is enough to send viewers to other channels to seek relief.

It’s a pity, because many of us would like to spend news time with the best anchor on local TV, Ann Martin.

JULES BRENNER

Hollywood

While reading Tuck’s indignant riposte to Rosenberg, it hit me that Tuck seems to have confused his job as local news anchor with that of a real journalist. No offense, but even in these days of tabloid-everything, Tuck doesn’t exactly qualify as a journalist. He’s just a guy who reads the news, a pretty face with big hair, a commanding voice and the ability to project sincerity across the airwaves to an increasingly gullible public.

His pal Joel Grover is a journalist. Whether he’s a good one or not is for others to decide, but his job requires him to engage directly in “the collection and editing of news” (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary).

MICHAEL TAYLOR

Los Angeles