Why are Republicans Attacking Public TV?
As a member and supporter of Maryland Public Television, I cannot allow this latest thrust by Congress to "zero out" government funding for public broadcasting to continue without comment. Since this effort is being led primarily by the Republicans, it is only right and proper that they should be singled out, especially since they claim exclusive rights to everything that Americans must have to sustain traditional "family values," whatever that may be. Yet, with no rational reason, they attack the one thing that millions of families in America trust and depend upon daily to provide wholesome, non-violent information, that educates and enlightens, while entertaining both parents and children alike.
For House Speaker Newt Gingrich to call public television "this little sandbox for the rich" is infuriating and spotlights the increasing flow of Republican "doublespeak" that continues daily without restraint.
Parents today are rightly concerned about the overwhelming amount of violence presented, not only in movies, but more directly, the violence on commercial TV that comes right into the home. As a parent of a nine-year-old and the grandparent of nine, all under 13, this is a matter of great concern and requires constant vigilance. I have been through the "karate kicks" directed at me when he was watching, faithfully, "Ninja Turtles." It soon became apparent to me, and his mother, that he was imitating the kicking and punching he saw on TV and it was becoming his primary method of communicating with us and his friends.
We had to ban the viewing of "Ninja Turtles" and put a strict time limit on his watching of commercial TV. But we put no such limit on public TV. He could watch any program at any time. In fact, we encouraged this. As his parents, we know that from sign-on to sign-off Maryland Public Television will never offer anything that will be offensive to our "family values." We cannot always offer that same unconditional confidence to all of his friends, classmates, teachers or even his religious teaching.
Without public TV, commercial television will be a hollow and dangerous substitute. It exists primarily to make money, and for this reason, the greatest percentage of broadcast time is to entertain with very little effort, thought or funds applied to educating. Hours of cartoons and cheap animated funnies are designed to simply fill the time between commercials. The programs must hold the viewers long enough in order to #F bombard them with slick, convincing advertisements that are an intricate part of an elaborate marketing scheme to sell something. Because of this pressure to produce, the programs, particularly children's programs, have little to offer and can be influenced greatly by sponsors. This never happens in public TV. In fact, commercials are non-existent or discreetly low-key. There will never be a Budweiser commercial on Maryland Public Television. . . .
The bottom line of all this is that public broadcasting works. It is one of the most successful products that the government has ever helped produce. Politicians should point with pride to the results and be willing to spend more, not less. With a national budget that involves trillions of dollars, the few millions committed to public broadcasting seems insignificant. It makes one wonder what may be the true reason behind this needless Republican attack on public broadcasting.
Vince DePalmer
Manchester
More Like Sauerbrey
In his letter of Dec. 31, Eli Rody states that the 1994 general election was lost when the Republicans did not select Helen Bentley as their candidate. While I agree that Mrs. Bentley has made many contributions to Maryland, I commend the Maryland GOP in its election of Ellen Sauerbrey.
A well-informed voter researches each candidate as to his proven record and his proposed platform. Mrs. Sauerbrey's past performance in Annapolis has been steadfast, unwavering, in fact, very unpolitician-like. Her platform is well-thought out, offers solutions to Maryland's problems and is fiscally sound. In fact, it is so good, that in recent weeks Parris Glendening has adopted much of it as his own, thus creating an agenda. . . .
For those who may have doubted the caliber of Mrs. Sauerbrey, certainly the events following the general election have made believers of them.
For decades, candidates and citizens alike have questioned the sanctity of our elections because the power of political bosses and machines has been an accepted way of life. But do you know of any other candidate who would have had the strength and moral conviction to launch a statewide election inquiry in order to assure every Marylander that his vote has not been diluted?
Which other candidate could have inspired more than 1,000 volunteers of both parties, from every walk of life and from every county and city of Maryland to enthusiastically be a part of this inquiry team? . . . In summary, I echo, "Thanks, Ellen for choosing to serve all of Maryland. It's too bad there aren't 49 more of you."
E. N. Lallas
Westminster