Kids’ access to television programs
Re: “Tuning in to families’ needs,” May 1 Business story.
I am both amazed and appalled that Dan Isett of the Parents Television Council can say, apparently without irony, both that parents are “not allowed to decide for themselves what constitutes a family tier” (of cable TV channels) and at the same time that “Parents like to be able to give kids more unfettered access to TV.”
Well, which is it? Do parents want to exercise more control, or less? Or could it be that the Parents Television Council is pandering to parents who demand that someone else exercise the control that they have willingly abdicated? What, precisely, is the logic here? Apparently, it is that some parents want a lobbying group to influence the choices made by cable operators (with the either implicit or explicit endorsement by the FCC), so those same parents need not exercise any influence over the TV-viewing choices of their children.
Wake up, America! It is not the job of TV programmers, broadcasters, or cable operators to baby-sit your children. Even though I have spent most of my adult life working in television and related technologies – including public television, which has some of the best children’s programs – I find it worrisome that parents like the one quoted in the article seem to think nothing of plopping a 2-year-old and a 5-year-old down in front of the TV set. If they see or hear something their young minds cannot effectively process or filter, well, that’s someone else’s fault, isn’t it?
The final irony was running this article next to a small, uncaptioned photo illustrating the most powerful form of parental choice in TV viewing: a finger on the power button!
David P. Otey, Certified Professional Broadcast Engineer
Centennial
Polygamy’s connection to Mormon church
Re: “Brother admits helping polygamist stay on lam,” May 2 Denver & The West.
I was displeased that in the article Warren Jeffs was incorrectly described as a “Mormon polygamist religious leader.” The term “Mormon” refers specifically to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and no one else. As stated on the official website for the LDS Church (www.lds.org): “When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, the terms ‘Mormons,’ ‘Mormon fundamentalist,’ ‘Mormon dissidents,’ etc., are incorrect.”
The Associated Press Stylebook notes: “The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other … churches that resulted from the split after Smith’s death.” The article did explain later that Warren Jeffs’ religious group separated itself from the LDS church, but still referred to Jeffs as a “Mormon” leader. The LDS Church does not accept the practice of polygamy and any member found in that practice is no longer considered a member of the church.
Please make sure the articles that are written and published in The Denver Post do not help add to the confusion that already exists.
Emily Kiana Maxwell, Montrose
Fuel efficiency rules
Re: “Climbing gas prices and the GOP’s idea for $100 fuel ‘rebate,”‘ April 29 Open Forum.
Letter-writers Laura Harper and Karl Hanzel called for passage of the Automobile Fuel Efficiency Improvement Act to increase gas mileage.
In 1975, a similar measure called CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) was adopted, and gas mileage went from about 14 miles per gallon back then to about 28 mpg now. With better gas mileage, people did much more driving than before. So in spite of a doubling of fuel efficiency, oil consumption went up, and so did highway deaths because the cars were made lighter in order to comply.
If this newer version of CAFE is passed, we’ll see the same results as the old one: More people will die on the highways, and not a drop of oil will be saved.
Dave Olson, Westminster
Plant is a leader
Re: “Ethics dispute over $25,000,” May 3 news story
Tom Plant’s actions are not in the least bit “shocking.” His leadership in energy policy is sorely needed in our state. What would have been shocking is if he, as an elected representative, did nothing to advance Colorado’s energy policy or if he, as the head of the Center for Resource Conservation, did not apply for the energy grant. Rep. Plant is clearly a man who believes strongly in smart resource policy and is dedicated in his career to do what is right for Colorado’s energy and resource needs.
Debbie Anderson, P.E., Golden
GE Energy Project Manager
Network Reliability Products & Services
“Spin” in journalism
Re: “Spin is a polite word for lying,” May 2 editorial.
I read your editorial with great amusement. You say, “by lying to a reporter, Leggitt also lied to the public.” In my opinion, your newspaper “spins” the truth everyday. I don’t subscribe to The Post. My employer does and it sits in the lunchroom every day. It’s seldom read except for the sports section.
Perhaps the public has caught on to your spin!
Norm Lindstrom, Monument
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@
denverpost.com (only straight
text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The
Denver Post, 1560 Broadway,
Denver, 80202 or PO Box
1709, Denver, 80201
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.
