Steve Smith got a follow-up, so I’d...

Steve Smith got a follow-up, so I’d like to try again. His latest

column attributes variety on TV to “simple market forces,” which he

concludes obviates the need for a subsidized option.

The problem with his logic is that market forces in TV are not

what they seem to be. It is a regulated industry. Access is sold by

the government, and noneconomic forces often enter in.

Before cable, competition was limited, allowing CBS or NBC to make

profit margins they could not have earned in true competition. To

protect them in the cable era, the Federal Communications Commission

legislated that the cable companies would have to pay fees to air the

networks’ fare on cable systems. The networks then swapped these fees

for more access in the form of MSNBC, CNBC, the Disney Channel, etc.

That’s a hidden subsidy you and I pay for every month in our cable

bill. I also have foreign language stations in my living room because

the government insists they have access (another hidden subsidy).

The difference with public TV is that the subsidy is out in the

open, making it an easy target. As the budget cutters went after that

money, KOCE and others, as Smith noted, have had to find new sources

of income.

Some of us, probably a minority, think the programming KOCE

provides is worth the open subsidy and don’t begrudge the viewers of

the Discovery Channel, the History Channel or A&E; (also probably

minorities) their hidden subsidies.

I’ll leave it to others whether it is a fact, as Smith asserts,

that TV “is as powerfully addictive as opium.”

BOB SCHMIDT

Corona del Mar

Steve Smith, you’ve done it again.

Stating “there is no such thing as good television,” you’ve jumped

to conclusions, stereotyped and lumped all TV programming into one

big ball and called it junk.

It is true that a lot of television programs are junk. However, TV

has also brought us live footage of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin

walking on the moon’s surface, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and

programs showing us the creation of a human being from a tiny cell.

More than one high school student has told me that they have

learned a great deal of history and science from the History and

Discovery channels.

I know junk when I see it, and I don’t watch it. Here I can agree

with you.

Junk programming does have a mind-mushing effect on me. For you to

tell us, the reading audience, that our brains don’t know the

difference between good and bad programming is condescending and

arrogant.

Please stop insulting our intelligence.

KARIN W. AHLF

Costa Mesa

Steve Smith, enough already about how poisonous TV is!

Your comment that there is no such thing as good TV is not only

ludicrous, but it is your opinion. You have the right to voice what

you feel, as does everyone.

I have a problem with you comparing TV to opium and its viewers to

people addicted to drugs and having withdrawal symptoms.

Are you crazy, Steve? When have you witnessed someone kicking a

drug? I’m sure most addicts wish that kicking their addiction was as

simple as pushing the off button. The parallel you are trying to draw

is insulting to people who have beaten their addictions.

Too much of just about anything can have negative effects: coffee,

sugar, sleep, work, bread. Get my point?

I have the choice to watch what I want, when I want. Sometimes I

watch the History Channel, and sometimes I watch David Letterman. So

what? I am so sick of you riding your high horse pronouncing how much

better you are than those of us who turn on the TV. And you are wrong

to say that those of us who are watching are not exercising, reading

or conversing. Spend 24 hours in my house; I will prove you wrong.

You have made a choice to rid your life of the heinous effects of

TV -- good for you. But stop insinuating that the rest of us are

mindless, lazy morons.

“TV turns your mind to mush” doesn’t sound like a very “technical”

term to me.

MAUREEN MAZZARELLA

Costa Mesa