News & Views » Feedback

Letters to the Editor

by

Bravo to Jack

I just read Jack Lessenberry’s article on broadcast media’s coverage of the 2004 Democratic Convention (“MIA: ABC, CBS, NBC,” Metro Times, July 28) and I have to say, “Bravo!” These unelected CEOs are destroying our democratic process because of their incredibly irresponsible, shortsighted greed. Lessenberry’s main point, that we, the American people, own these airwaves, not these greedy corporate executives, is totally to the point. One of the first things that President Kerry should do is reclaim the means of mass communication from these irresponsible agents of greed. —Lance Laughlin, Independence, Mo., entropicwolf@yahoo.com

 

Money not only reason

I thought you let the networks off easy when you said the reason the networks only cover the Democratic National Convention one hour a night was money. I feel there are reasons other than the almighty dollar, one being that they don’t want an educated audience. People might start questioning other issues involving them and their families’ lives. Or that the Democrats aren’t saying things that are in the networks’ best interests. —Steven Todd Johnston, Warren

 

Bum rush the show

I agree that the big three are less inclined to give us the full story by keeping us sedate with “reality” shows. But who should shoulder the blame? I say the blame falls squarely on the folks who scripted the whole mess. The convention was more scripted than anything the WWF has ever put out. Save for Sharpton, who at least tried to call someone out, what passes for media today is Wag The Dog. The whole election process has become more of a joke every day. In a nation of 260-280 million, those two are the best we deserve? —Brian Commeans, Hilliard, Ohio, bucksfan45@msn.com

 

Follow the money

Regarding all the recent articles on voting and elections: Our population as a whole has essentially dropped out of the most basic right of democracy, and it probably has some deep meaning to it, possibly an attitude within our population that our democracy is failing us, or that elected officials are not responsive to us.

Maybe it has much to do with another issue: the money.

As John Kerry and George Bush vie for the presidency we all know the tonnage of dollars they have to obtain to run their ads on television, on radio and in print. And when we follow the money, we naturally are suspicious that the biggest donors to the candidate that wins will get the laws, legislation and tax breaks they want. Many of us believe it to be what it looks like, bribery. To answer Mr. Lessenberry, why should the major networks broadcast all of the convention when the two candidates are going to shovel bags of money to them to air their advertising that will say essentially the same thing that the two candidates will bleat during the convention? —Jonathan Barber, Madison Heights, jbwolf13@wowway.com

 

A knotty issue

Though I applaud your article looking at the differences in the equal marriage rights arguments in the United States and Canada (“Tying the Windsor knot,” Metro Times, Aug. 4), I am writing to take issue with your use of the term, “same-sex marriage.”

There is no such thing as a “same-sex marriage.” These terms are used by religious extremists for shock value and as an attempt to further segregate gays and lesbians — and their relationships — from “the rest of us.”

Marriage is the recognized legal union of two people who have agreed to share their lives, property and custody of any children. Period. In a secular, pluralistic society, any other definition of marriage must be left to the individual churches to decide for their members who agree to those definitions.

Therefore, it doesn’t matter one whit whether the marriage is between a couple whose genders differ or one whose genders are the same.

Better, then — until same-gender couples’ rights are recognized in this country as easily as are mine and my (male) fiance’s — to use variations on the somewhat awkward term, “marriage between same-sex couples.” Or, better yet — “equal marriage,” or “equal marriage rights.” —Dawn Wolfe, Farmington Hills

Send comments to letters@metrotimes.com

comment