Naming The News Network Would Hold It Accountable

To the editors:

While I can begin to sympathize with Morgan Grice’s experience (“Zero Minutes of Fame,” Comment, Mar. 9), that sympathy falls away with this one sentence: “I was to appear on a certain cable news network that shall remain nameless (yes, careerism and any potential ramifications unfortunately factor in).”

Rather than inform us of who in the media are responsible (at least in part) for its sorry state, we are left with yet another story about the nameless “them.” So instead of a story about a news channel gone wrong, we’ve got a story about Grice. The cable channel is still doing its lousy job serving the public, secure in knowing it hasn’t been “outted.” In the end I’m still left with crappy news. Nothing has changed. What was the point of this sad tale?

This is the essence of what Jon Stewart complained about during his recent, famous appearance on Crossfire: “News” today is really a synonym for “entertainment,” with the hosts serving up a daily dose of “stupid guest tricks.” At least Stewart didn’t hide the object of his distain. If only real journalists had the guts of the fake ones.

DORAN BARONS

March 9, 2005