Address your e-mail to
the editors to [email protected]. Please include your address and daytime phone
number (for confirmation only).
Murdoch
= Sleaze
"Rupert Murdoch,
Humanitarian?" was David Plotz's embrace of the one magnate who has done
more to bring down the standards of journalism worldwide than any other.
Whether in newspapers or television, Murdoch has consistently shown a disdain
for fairness, class, and appropriate journalistic behavior. And he
single-handedly deserves responsibility for creating the tabloid-television
phenomenon with A Current Affair , the worst affront to American
television-news standards of our era.
As
someone from MSNBC, I can't be considered exactly the most objective source of
analysis of Murdoch's media behavior (in light of MSNBC cable's competition for
distribution and eyeballs with his Fox News Channel). So, I'll leave that
analysis for others. But you need only pick your medium or your country to
determine what he's left in his wake. Plotz and Slate may be willing to embrace
his efforts to bring media (in Murdoch's case, sleazy media) to worldwide
audiences. You may even want to applaud his efforts to bust unions. But to
ignore Murdoch's contribution to dumbing down and trashing media and journalism
is to only tell part of the story.
--Merrill Brown
Redmond, Wash.
Santorum
= Saint
In "Sen.
Symbol, R-Pa.," Jacob Weisberg unfairly chastises Sen. Rick Santorum for
opposing Sen. Tom Daschle's (D-S.D.) last-minute bill that would supposedly ban
all abortions after fetal viability. Santorum just didn't want to accept such a
hollow measure.
The Daschle proposal would
have permitted abortions after viability if continuing the pregnancy posed a
risk of "grievous harm" to the mother's health, a determination left solely to
the doctor. No doctor could be prosecuted for making such a false claim,
because no one else's opinion would matter. And of course, the courts have
previously held that "health" includes both physical and mental aspects. This
enormous loophole made the bill completely irrelevant.
Daschle's
bill was a sham, designed to draw support away from Sen. Santorum's bill, which
actually would have done something to criminalize certain types of abortions.
Criticizing Santorum for opposing the Daschle bill simply so that he could
garner political points is an untrue and very unfair characterization of the
events.
-- Stephen
J. Konig
Roanoke, Va.
Do the
Shoes Fit?
In "Boycott Nike and
Reebok," Robert Wright commits the usual error of outside commentators on
black culture: He sees it as monolithic. Olajuwon is a Nigerian guy and Rodman
is an African-American. Olajuwon's culture, for the better part of this
century, was British colonial. Rodman's was hard-core Americana, with the
influence of American slavery.
Wright can throw up a lot of
chatter about the ways that the shoe companies are wrecking the inner cities
and offering sick models for little black kids to look up to, but the vulgarity
of his means--depicting two representatives of wildly different cultures as if
they were culturally identical--belies the error of his agenda.
The only
difference between spending a ton of money on Nike shoes and on a Gucci suit is
in what type of cultural expression you choose. Wright seems to think we should
boycott everything that expresses a black ego. It turns my stomach to read yet
another backdoor assault on the economically powerful models that
African-Americans have managed to establish. Those blanched Protestants, after
all, who dictated that humility could be measured in chinos and tweed, couldn't
have been assholes, too, now could they? Speak softly and sponsor a housing
project, then when that doesn't pan out, blame it on the shoes.
-- Matthew DeBord
New York City
Rodman's
Rump
In "Boycott Nike and
Reebok," Robert Wright wants shoe companies to sign players who will help
inner-city kids conform their conduct to the expectations of a suburban job
interview. I think that is terrible.
Dennis Rodman's popularity
has nothing to do with a shoe contract. Rodman works his ass off rebounding and
scrambling for the ball, and not only when everyone is watching and every game
is important. There is virtue and substance there even if Wright can't see it.
Rodman is also popular because his rebellion and mad behavior are welcome in a
world where we're expected to be deferential and compliant.
Wright
doesn't understand that the reservoir of personality and influence in sport is
not controlled by Madison Avenue or Nike. The source for greatness is the
individual player. Some waters run deep, others shallow. Nike's "I am Tiger
Woods" means something only because Tiger Woods traveled to a place where he
was not welcome and beat the bastards at their own game. Woods of course was
conspicuously absent from Wright's essay.
-- John
Love
Pasadena, Calif.
Neutral
as a Knife
Franklin Foer wrote an
interesting article on the latest abortion hubbub in this week's "Gist" on fetal viability.
But there was an outrageous error in the links for the article, which
identified the Alan Guttmacher Institute as "nonpartisan."
The
institute is owned by Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the
nation. I submit that this oversight suggests either that Foer isn't as
informed on the subject as he appears to be, or that his politics are showing.
I enjoy the usual "here are the facts--deal with them" tone of Slate, and I
hope this mistake will not be repeated.
-- John
Murdoch
Wind Gap, Pa.
Ban
Non-Voter Contributions
David Mastio's "The Kiddie-Cash
Caper" was a great piece on the use of minors to launder campaign
contributions. Unfortunately, the author failed to mention that the leading
bipartisan campaign-reform bill would end this sham. "It shall be unlawful for
an individual who is not qualified to vote in a Federal election to make a
contribution ..." is the simple solution offered in the McCain-Feingold
campaign-reform bill. This provision would outlaw contributions by resident
aliens, felons, and children.
It is
important not to shrug our shoulders in despair over the current state of our
election process but, rather, to actively seek and support real solutions which
can revitalize American democracy. I encourage anyone who is ready to simply
give up on Washington politicians to remember that they are only there because
we sent them to be our representatives. Let them know that you expect them to
support efforts to clean up the campaign-fund-raising system.
--Jamie
Willmuth
Checkered Out
I thought Alex Heard's piece
"Sore Loser" put
Garry Kasparov's behavior in proper context, but as a member of the Chinook
team (computer checkers), I would like to make two points. First, Chinook did
play Don Lafferty again in January 1995, and Chinook won that match with one
win, no losses, and 31 draws. While this result is no more statistically
significant than Deep Blue's recent win, both matches do constitute important
data points. The 1995 match is documented at the Chinook Web site and
in a recent book by Jonathan Schaeffer on the Chinook project.
Second,
perfect play (which is not necessarily the same as inspiring or imaginative
play) in games like checkers and chess can be reduced to pure computation. So,
as computers get faster, they will surpass human capabilities in these limited
domains.
-- Paul
Lu
Toronto, Ontario
Address your e-mail to
the editors to [email protected]. Please include your address and daytime phone
number (for confirmation only).
