Why Interview Bin Laden?
I read Howard Rosenberg’s screed with dismay but not surprise (“Let’s Review Strategy Before Attacking CNN,” Oct. 22). Basically, Rosenberg defends CNN’s decision to attempt to “interview” Osama bin Laden and other deranged terrorists.
Rosenberg is right in that our media vampires would love to interview Bin Laden, liar or not, propagandist or not. Not because of the truth, but because controversy sells papers and television time. And controversy pays for Rosenberg’s substantial salary, when any reader of The Times could do an equal or better job as that last column.
Lenin used to laugh about the “useful fools of the West,” who would swallow any lie or bit of propaganda. And old Joe Stalin said it best: “When it is time to hang the West, they will sell us the rope.” Or the television time.
People like Rosenberg should keep that lesson in mind when dealing with media-hungry terrorists.MARK MARTIN Eagle Rock
Sorry, but you’re wrong on this one. Under no circumstances should Bin Laden be given any type of platform to communicate. Nothing that he can say, other than “I admit guilt and surrender,” can be worthy of exposure.
As you well know from many years in the TV biz, exposure legitimizes. Exposure of any kind for Bin Laden’s insane crusade will legitimize it for someone, somewhere. He needs to be completely cut off.
Equating Sunday-morning interviewees and their various obfuscations and half-truths to the twisted rants that spew forth from the murderer of thousands of innocent people in America is wildly out of proportion. If you’re having trouble weighing this out, just have another look at the Sept. 11 tapes.
Bin Laden has already utterly used the U.S. against itself, as we trained his suicide pilots and supplied the planes. And now you would have us give him some TV time?
MARK GLEASON
Costa Mesa
*
That was the most interesting, well-thought-out response to the interview controversy. Rosenberg made clear sense.
And, no, it wouldn’t be giving aid and comfort to the enemy by talking to them. If I remember my Scriptures right, Jesus never turned anyone away who wanted to talk to him. They may not have liked what he said, but say it to them he did. Well, that’s the best model of discourse I can come up with. Would Jesus have given written questions in advance? You bet, if that was the only way he could discourse with the powers that be (that’s not how things worked back then, though). Communication is biblical. Didn’t Martin Luther nail 95 questions to the church door, sparking the Reformation?
Yup, communication is downright healthy and a tool that can cut both ways and bring clarity to a situation. So Rosenberg should stick to his guns. He’s in good company. In fact, it doesn’t get any better.MARTHA TISCHLER Fair Lawn, N.J.