Feedback: Too much attention for the anti-vaxxer rocker?
Giving voice to an anti-vaxxer
I can’t believe your editor agreed to a full-page Calendar article [“People Warned Me,” Aug. 15 by Randall Roberts] showboating the conspiracy-fueled anti-vaccine insanity of Joseph Arthur. This amounts to telling his fanatical followers it’s OK to continue drinking his Kool-Aid. Roberts even announced the time and place of the next in-person public concert.
This, when your news sections continue to report the shocking and deadly increase in new virus infections, remorseful deaths and lack of hospital beds throughout the country.
Seemingly bewildered at those who still refuse to be vaccinated, you have run many serious editorials to convince or shame your readers.
If the real purpose of this article was to inform readers that this anti-vaccine addict has lost some supporters, simply adding it to the small “For the Record” box on the bottom of the last page would have done the job.
“Arthur’s girlfriend recently gave birth to their first child. Asked whether she will receive the recommended vaccinations that children get at two months he says, ‘We’re looking into all that.’”
That quote says it all.
That The Times would glorify Arthur (I had never heard of him) by wasting a full page of print on such an outlier is mind-boggling.
Obviously Randall Roberts intended to expose the ignorance and idiocy of Arthur, but reading the piece only served to give credence to the rockers’ ignorance-based BS and, more importantly, encourage continued unwillingness of the “no vaxxer” crowd to get a brain.
Arthur doesn’t need to be given voice when his misbegotten views have proved to cause so much pain, destruction, animosity and death in this country.
Sylvia Lewis Gunning
Seriously? I can think of dozens of indie artists who would love coverage and Roberts lands on an anti-vaxxer to waste a whole page on in an already puny Sunday Calendar?
Wasn’t there a flat-earther he could have found instead?
This sadly misguided man’s point of view is contrary to accepted medical science and is directly contributing to continued sickness and death. Shame on you.
Who is Mike Richards?
Regarding “It Takes Two to Replace Alex Trebek” [Aug. 12 by Christie D’Zurilla]: It’s too bad that the producers of “Jeopardy!” are nowhere near as smart as their contestants.
With an impressive, diverse array of possible choices to replace Alex Trebek for the show’s daily syndicated broadcast, they have decided to go with a straight white male — an executive producer of the show with zero charisma and even less charm.
Great choice, guys.
‘Jeopardy!’ will return to a guest-host format and search anew for a full-time host as Mike Richards steps down. He will remain as executive producer.
Mike Richards was obviously their choice of host from day one [“How did the choice of ‘Jeopardy!’ host become so controversial? ” by Matt Brennan and Robert Lloyd]. He was the first to try out and all the others were just there to fill the time until he took over. It all seems quite obvious to many of us that the rest of the guest hosts never had a chance and the public was fooled.
Mike Richards was boring and should not have been chosen as the new host. They have lost me as a viewer.
However, I liked Mayim Bialik and I will watch her episodes.
I think they overlooked the best possibility when they chose Richards as the new host of “Jeopardy!”
I think the person who showed the best results as a great host was Joe Buck. He was on top of everything and was great at interviewing the contestants. Made great lead-ins to commercials and all the breaks, just did a superb job.
Answer: Merv Griffin.
Question: Who is rolling over in their grave?
Mike Richards would be the perfect host for “Wheel of Fortune” when that time comes.
You’ll know it when you see it
The letter that described “9 Chickweed Lane” as soft pornography [“Calendar Feedback: Not Very Comic at All,” Aug. 8] is in my opinion, way off base. To be sure, the breezy interplay in this comic strip sometimes contains innuendo aimed at more mature readers, but to liken it to pornography is like characterizing the sly and playful banter between “The Thin Man’s” Nick and Nora as being dirty.
As a reader who has carefully studied the L.A. Times comics section for over 50 years (and remembers series as varied as “Clive,” “Rick O’Shay,” “Tumbleweeds” and “Friday Foster” from a half century ago), I think that the intention of “9 Chickweed Lane” is not to arouse, but creatively push the boundaries of comic art illustration within the limited panel space of a newspaper strip.
I would call it a cheeky depiction of passion and romantic love, yet the letter writer sees it as graphic sex. That crude description is blind to the artistry behind the brilliant concepts and design of “9 Chickweed Lane,” which for readers like me is a daily source of inspiration.
On Pride Month, of all times, “9 Chickweed Lane” launched a storyline where its sole gay male main character is being turned straight through the power of sexy woman legs.
I’m not sure why exactly we need to see the gay dude have sex with a woman in various dreamscape levels for going on 80 days now, but I’m pretty sure it’s not about Seth figuring out he’s bisexual.
This comic strip is perpetuating the bigoted lie that all a gay man needs is to find the right woman and his “problem” is solved.
And, yeah, he cheated on his partner. It happens, but also I don’t think we’re supposed to care about it, because the comic sure hasn’t so far. He’s off getting married to a woman who was originally introduced to the strip as his homophobic rival and his live-in boyfriend has not been mentioned once since.
It’s awful. It’s shameful.
David M Willis
Please get rid of “9 Chickweed Lane” and put in one of the past strips like “Kathy” or “Sally Forth.” “Chickweed Lane” is soft porn.
Since the pandemic, confined to home, the Los Angeles Times chose to discontinue the TV guide listings and has yet to restore it. That never made sense; just when we are forced to stay home The Times leaves us in limbo.
The complete guide to home viewing
Get Screen Gab for weekly recommendations, analysis, interviews and irreverent discussion of the TV and streaming movies everyone’s talking about.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.