Electronic media vs. the morning paper
Re: “Is the morning paper still useful?” July 13 Open Forum.
I am perplexed by letter-writer Robert Tucker’s decision to stop reading the newspaper, and am curious about how he’s chosen to replace it.
The only way to get “up-to-the-minute” news is electronically, and I’ve found both radio and television, with the exception of NPR and PBS, to be inadequate for in-depth information and reporting. And favorite programs may require one’s presence in front of the tube at specified times, while a newspaper can be perused during any number of free moments during the day.
Most of us saw the televised footage of the bombings in London. Reading about it in The Post the next day, I didn’t think of it as stale. It offered in-depth information that I could read and ponder throughout the day.
Further, I don’t think there is an environmentally friendly way of getting comprehensive and in-depth reporting. Toxic mercury in our water and landfills is a source for concern, and disposal of our electronic waste – computer monitors and TVs, for example – is a major problem.
Novella Maia, Aurora
…
The first thing I do after I eat breakfast and get dressed is read my Denver Post. I spend about an hour with The Post on Sundays, usually after church. I also read a number of specialized papers. I find the print media is more accurate and complete than anything I get from the electronic media. I also find less bias – except on the editorial page, where it belongs. Please don’t take my paper away from me because someone either can’t read or doesn’t have the patience to read.
Bill Jordan, Brighton
—————————————-
Differences between Dems and Republicans
Re: “Dems’ take on taxes gets a C or D,” July 14 David Harsanyi column.
David Harsanyi’s column shouts out the differences between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans want no taxes but they do want services. Democrats want services and believe they have to pay for them.
Somewhere in mid-column, Harsanyi cites that Bush’s across- the-board tax cuts have spurred higher productivity. Where’s the proof? Just saying so doesn’t make it so.
To simplify, conservatives don’t want government, don’t believe government can help, and want every man for himself. This ideology helps wealthy people only. Liberals believe we are all in this together. We believe government can help and should help. It’s all in how you divide the pie. We believe it is wrong to have our children and grandchildren pay off the massive debt that current Republican leaders have saddled us with.
R. Koch, Aurora
—————————————-
World climate change
Re: “U.S. played spoiler on climate, Africa,” July 11 editorial.
You claim in your editorial that “heaps of scientific reports show that nations need to take immediate steps … regarding climate change.” That may be true. But you neglect to mention that there are also heaps of scientific reports suggesting that the heaps you’re talking about are bunk.
In its latest assessment, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – a leading proponent of global warming – acknowledges that “the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” In their communiqué, the G8 leaders similarly conceded that “uncertainty remains in our understanding of climate science.”
The fact is, Earth’s history is filled with mini ice ages and warm spells. Contradictions abound. The Arctic is warmer today than it was in 1970, yet colder than it was in 1930. How do you reconcile such facts? I submit that you can’t – because our understanding of global temperature change is simply insufficient.
Steven Hayward, San Francisco
The writer is a senior fellow for the Pacific Research Institute.
TO REACH US
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
