Conventional TV

Tim RUTTEN hit the nail directly on the head (“15,000 Journalists and Still a Dearth of Coverage,” July 29). How can a nation decide important issues if they are not given the privilege of viewing and hearing speakers with brilliance, serious information and foresight?

The arrogance and greed of the networks to “assume” that there would not be enough of a viewing audience to air more of the convention is only surpassed by their decision to make sure of this with a lack of promotion about what viewers would be able to see.

How can members of a democratic country decide on their leadership if they are spoon-fed only what the networks determine they should view?

Carol Sapin Gold

Marina del Rey

*

I think that two new categories for Emmys should be added: “Stupidity” and “The best expression of greed overcoming public interest.” There would no doubt be six winners: The three major networks would tie in both categories, for their failure to properly cover the political conventions.

John Dwyer

Long Beach

*

How would the public benefit by watching the conventions? Would it learn something it doesn’t already know? Would it gain some insight to the nature and stature of the candidates that isn’t already available in a more accurate form from their lives and records over the course of many years? The answer is: Of course not.

An obligation to public interest is not being fulfilled, but it is the obligation to return to a political system in which candidates are chosen during the conventions and not during slick, high-spending media campaigns months before the conventions are held.

The networks not only should not be required to cover the trash politics of the present conventions, but political parties holding the conventions should have to pay the usual advertising rates for these displays of non-news.

Bill McKim

Sun City