Lessons Learned From the World of Television and Critics

The best thing about television is The Times’ television critics.

Howard Rosenberg, in his column “If We Can’t Get Just Facts, Honesty Will Do” (Jan. 22), offered a rare challenge to the revered History Channel. In taking to task the producers of the “History vs. Hollywood” series, Rosenberg essentially exposes television’s inherent superficiality, constrained as it is by its little pictures.

Brian Lowry, in his look at sports and television (“TV Isn’t Everything; It’s the Only Thing,” Jan. 24), took on an even larger aspect of the medium--how television repositions society. Lowry reveals that the more relentlessly active the on-screen production, the more insidiously passive is the viewer. Some media critics call this the “mediumist” perspective. In contrast to seeing, say, violent content as most important, mediumist critics might see the sense of power a child takes from the ability of TV to glide continuously from image to image, just for him or her.

Without analyses by a pair of your most competent columnists, and others, we would have no clue, thanks to what mediumists would call the actual invisibility of television.

MICHAEL JONDREAU

Santa Monica

*

At the time Anne Meadows and I were interviewed by Susan King (“Balancing Fact and Fiction,” TV Times, Jan. 21), we had not seen the “History vs. Hollywood” episode on “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” to which we had contributed as historical consultants. Now that we’ve watched the episode, we must report that it disingenuously attempted to breathe new life into an all but expired controversy over whether Butch died in Bolivia or returned to the United States.

For example, the program aired a 1970s interview with Butch’s sister, Lula Parker Betenson, in which she said that her brother had returned to visit the family in 1925, almost two decades after his presumed death in Bolivia. Not disclosed to the viewers was the fact that most of Butch’s family--his father and other siblings, some of whom she had averred were present at the 1925 visit--said that he never returned. Moreover, after Lula died, one of her sons, whom she also said had been present at the reunion, told a writer that it never happened.

The television program might better have been titled “History vs. the History Channel,” because Hollywood, although it romanticized the circumstances of Butch and Sundance’s fatal shootout in Bolivia, at least got the basic idea straight.

DANIEL BUCK

Washington

*

So PBS is looking to end “Mystery!,” or at least revamp the show to include more American writers (“ ‘Mystery!’ to Get a Make-Over,” by Elizabeth Jensen, Jan. 25). The powers that be are concerned with sagging viewer support. Well, duh!

Viewers are not watching the reruns (which is half the programming!), and I object very much that the program is preempted four times a year so that KCET can show a “special” program during their pledge drives.

Let’s face it--for the good old-fashioned whodunit, the English excel! It’s not better scripts that are needed on “Mystery!” but a realistic look at the programming practices! If, indeed, “Mystery” is altered to include more contemporary stories, it will be another loss to the viewing public.

Just sign me an Old Codger!

JAMES VANCE

Long Beach

*

Re “ ‘Mister Rogers’ Viewed as Past Its Prime” (by Kristen Hays, Jan. 22):

You tell me which is “past its prime”: a program that has turned generations of children into better neighbors and citizens, helped them to unleash their creativity and imagination, instilled in them a lifetime love of learning and taught them tolerance and appreciation of others--or the society that considers that program “outdated”?

JORDAN CHODOROW

Los Angeles

*

I usually agree with Howard Rosenberg’s opinions but not when it comes to his column “Lights! Camera . . . And Now What?” (Jan. 19).

Bill Clinton as a charming and effective speaker? I just don’t see it. I see a smarmy “Jimmy Swaggart” type. The biting the lip was screaming insincerity. He’ll be around forever, no doubt, but I imagine him doing a late-night infomercial for “You Too Can Fool Anybody! And for only three easy payments of $19.95 . . .”

Rosenberg may miss his style, but I will not. I hope he sticks to more intriguing topics with his usual charm.

KAROL FRANKS

Pasadena

*

George W. Bush’s stumbling and bumbling doesn’t make him sincere--just uncaring. He’s awkward like a kid who hasn’t prepared for class because he’s not interested in the subject. He’s shallow. He has a video-game mentality.

And while I’m at it, he’s callous. Look at his indifference to executing (I’m not going to research how many, but it was a whole bunch of) Texans. He even, according to conservative columnist Tucker Carlson, scornfully mimicked the pleas for mercy of a condemned prisoner.

I’m not crazy about Clinton’s record on the death penalty. But at least he never made fun of the process. Furthermore, he cares enough about issues to study them thoroughly. He does all this so the likes of Rosenberg will accuse him of merely being facile.

TARJA BLACK

Lancaster