Letters To The Editor

THE MEDIA

Public has right to choose

What right does KREM 2 have to play a little god on what national television program I should view and not view? How does it they it has the right to supersede the First Amendment? I am mad!

My father, Ray Pitman, died Jan. 7, 1977, of Lou Gehrig’s disease. He contracted it in 1961. He struggled physically, he struggled mentally for one and a half decades. He always had a positive vision. Finally with liver cancer, and as a result of heavy medication, the inability to swallow or defecate, he wanted a butcher knife. He fought to where there was no fight left. And he continued of relative sound mind crying for a knife. Me, my wife, my kids, my sister and her children and my mother all wanted a butcher knife.

Not that I wanted to view another person going through the hell my father did, but the public has the right, if they choose, to see and maybe understand where decisions of death may be justified. I will not watch KREM 2 anymore. “60 Minutes” is a national CBS program of some intellect. If KREM 2 management had any semblance of some intellect they would resign immediately. Will Pitman Athol, Idaho

Kudos to Spokane affiliate

Kudos to Spokane’s CBS affiliate, KREM 2, which had the fortitude to protect family values by not showing the segment on “60 Minutes” of Dr. Death killing someone. We are viewers of KREM 2 in Kennewick. Too bad our local TV station, KEPR, did not hold these values.

Appreciate KREM 2’s consideration of people who try to live a good life, instead of those who destroy it. Bobbi J. Hobbs Kennewick

Thanks go to good man, Barth

Thank you, KREM 2 general manager Barry Barth, for holding the seriousness of life and death above commercial interests. Take pride. It is good men like you who will keep the spectacle of death from becoming a mere sport, voyeuristic pastime or circus sideshow.

The debate on assisted suicide, euthanasia, death with dignity and sanctity of life deserves more than the emotional sensationalism, cheap grab for ratings and appeal to blood lust that CBS’ “60 Minutes” employed. Timothy K. Christensen Otis Orchards

Action brings question of censorship

The issue is not whether the “60 Minutes” segment of Dr. Jack Kevorkian was appropriate or not. The issue is censorship. Did KREM 2 have a right to decide for all of us whether or not to air the segment?

If the time period was inappropriate for young viewers, the segment could have been shown at a later time. As it stands, Barry Barth has access to information that we do not because he saw the segment and made a decision for all of us about what we were or were not going to watch. I’m not comfortable with anyone making that kind of decision for me. Sharen Hunley Nine Mile Falls

Barth, KREM 2 did the right thing

A great big thank you to KREM 2’s Barry Barth for doing what we all know is the best. It is time for someone to stand up and do the right thing, and Barth did it. Thank you, from a Christian who is real glad that you let your true feelings of what is right and wrong guide your business and not the almighty dollar. Kenneth J. Allen Spokane

Station uses common sense

I support Barry Barth’s decision not to air the Dr. Jack Kevorkian segment from “60 Minutes.” This was not censorship; this was common sense.

Too often, people believe that anything and everything should be shown on television. But what about the young children who are home alone without their parents, and see for the first time a person die before their eyes? What about those who are flipping through the channels, not knowing a real death is about to happen, and see it by accident. I would have been one of the latter people. I have only seen one person die - my grandfather on his hospital bed - and that has affected me to this day. Even as an adult, it would have negatively affected me to come across an actual death unexpectedly as I flipped through the channels.

A person believes that there is some safety on network television at 7 p.m. from such tragedies. This is why some chose to watch some premium channels during the day or network programming late at night. They know when they can be safe. Had KREM 2 shown the Kevorkian segment, I would have no longer felt safe watching the station. It’s called playing by the rules. You know, those things our nation used to have. I appreciate Barth’s moral stand. Cindy Marks Post Falls

Obligation to inform not upheld

I vehemently disagree with KREM 2’s decision to censor the Dr. Jack Kevorkian segment that aired during “60 Minutes” Nov. 22. As a major television station, KREM 2 probably often airs subject matter with which General Manager Barry Barth doesn’t agree. However, he has an obligation to inform without personal bias.

As I understood, the taped segment was done in a way respectful to the gentleman whose death was recorded and was preceded by a warning about the graphic nature of the piece. There’s a vast difference between graphic material that educates and material that simply caters to a crass need for sensationalized entertainment.

I would like to have heard the interview and been allowed the choice whether to allow my children to see it.

I am a strong advocate of parental control. My husband and I limit what our children view and exercise a conservative stance on their entertainment choices. But we are extremely liberal on their viewing of information material. I now wonder if I can trust KREM 2 to provide news and information in a reliable manner. Has it bowed to corporate interests and will it continue to do so? Does Barth’s personal opinion and the opinion of the corporate owners determine the content of KREM 2’s educational and information programming?

Until I have a clear answer, my family will not view KREM 2’s programming with the same trust we once had.

As I have endeavored to teach my children, trust, once lost, is difficult to regain. Rita D. Bierley Cheney

KREM took away freedom of choice

I was appalled by KREM 2’s decision not to air the story on “60 Minutes” regarding Dr. Jack Kevorkian. I found this decision on the 35th anniversary of the death of President Kennedy especially ironic. Since Nov. 22, 1963, the memory of President Kennedy being shot is forever ingrained in our minds. The images of his violent demise will be with us forever.

On this day, KREM 2 decided I was not capable of making the choice to watch the planned and peaceful death of a terminally ill man. All day that Sunday, I considered the content of this “60 Minutes” broadcast. I was uncomfortable about seeing this historic event. Shortly before 7 p.m., I decided to watch the program.

I excused my two teenage boys and sat pensively waiting for the program to begin. Then, Barry Barth and the owners of KREM 2 determined they know better than I what is acceptable for me to see.

I was outraged and still am. They robbed me of my freedom of choice. How small-minded and ignorant of KREM 2 to feel that freedom and choice were within their control. This still is the United States of America, isn’t it? Lynn Christofferson Rathdrum, Idaho

LAND USE

Don’t rezone Greenbluff

Please don’t permit the county to rezone the Greenbluff area to permit gravel processing. Of the areas in Spokane that I recall most vividly as a youth (I’ve been here since 1935), the Greenbluff area always meant to me the best fruit in the nation. The canteloupe from that region have to be the best from anywhere.

With whatever strength you have, I urge your paper to not support this rezoning. T. Roger Billeter Spokane

ABORTION

Logic of decision perplexing

Re: K.M. Johnson’s letter, “Abortion decision is woman’s alone” (Nov. 24).

I am perplexed by the statement she made that “what happens to a woman’s body is her decision alone and no one else has the right to decide for her.” I couldn’t agree with Johnson more. However, her logic is flawed when she makes the leap from the right of a woman to decide what to do with her body and the right to obtain an abortion.

We all have not only the right but the responsibility to decide our own fate and that includes avoiding unwanted pregnancies. I’m sure all the pro-choice advocates can argue that point into eternity, i.e. uninformed teenagers, unavailable or failed contraception, abusive relationships, etc. These arguments serve only one purpose and that is to shift the focus away from the real issue which is personal responsibility.

Women, it’s time to wake up. You have the right to control your body, you have the right to not get pregnant, no legislation is trying to change this. But in your self-righteous exhortations against government, the church and the pro-life movement you are purveyors of the most cruel of double standards. You demand your own rights and usurp the rights of the unborn.

Until all people, men and women, take full ownership of their actions, our society will continue to degrade into this abyss of victimhood, irresponsibility and the quick fix at the expense of our most innocent and vulnerable members. Don’t they deserve some rights, too? Diane Delanoy Cusick, Wash.

How far to an enjoyable life?

Re: Letters, Nov. 15.

By attaching the ad to John Nugent’s letter, you only proved that it really supports teen sex. The underlying message of it is that sex is OK, and if a high school newspaper runs it, then it means teen sex is OK. So in addition to peer pressure now you have an official source of approval by adults and I begin to understand why some people want to bomb the offices of Planned Parenthood. I would rather fire the administration of Lewis and Clark High.

Fred J. Meyer has a great vision: If a couple decides to only have two children, there should be no obstacles placed in their way. So they can have as many abortions as they wish. They are entitled to an enjoyable life, after all. But let’s say they also have an 83-year-old great uncle living with them and they want to get rid of him. Are they entitled to kill him as well? Or in this case, is their enjoyable life less important?

This is not religious blathering, as Dick A. Hall suggests. Opposition to abortion is a matter of basic human fairness. Who is more fragile and needs more protection than an unborn baby? Peter C. Dolina Veradale

Bible gives definition of ‘sin’

Letter writer K.M. Johnson of Chattaroy writes (Nov. 24) to lament that some people are opposed to killing babies in order to terminate an inconvenient pregnancy. Johnson took particular exception to Initiative 694, which would have stopped partial-birth abortion.

Johnson goes on to define sin as “carrying a baby full term … wringing your hands and lamenting abortion … sitting in your church …”; a curious exercise in that the word “sin” comes from the Bible, a source that requires no editorial redefinitions by Johnson or anyone else. If the writer has read the Bible, then he/she knows that killing an unborn baby is a sin. If Johnson has not read the Bible, then he/she has no standing to discuss sin. Larry J. Welch Colbert

SPOKANE MATTERS

Help plan Riverfront Park’s future

Tonight, citizens of Spokane will have a second, and perhaps last, opportunity to gather and present their best ideas for improving our cherished centerpiece, Riverfront Park. The meeting is in the City Council chambers at 7 p.m. If you have an affection for this park, please attend and voice your opinions on what you feel the future should offer, to create a more attractive and fun environment than we ever could have imagined.

Let us all be as open minded and imaginative as we can in entertaining all offerings. Perhaps, for instance, we may find that moving the children’s rides to the north bank will open up the central area for a greater purpose. Could private enterprise offer a more dynamic and successful amusement park? Can we find a balance between preserving the natural environment and yet provide features that we can all enjoy throughout the seasons?

Please accept this challenge, to create an even better community gathering place for the future of our citizenry. Allan LeTourneau Spokane

PEOPLE AND SOCIETY

Put yourself in clerks’ shoes

It’s the holiday season again. Watch out, retail workers! I am writing about the holiday shoppers who take their stress and bad moods out on the retail workers who are just doing their jobs.

As an employee of a local grocery store, I would like to point out the fact that customers are more rude and demanding than usual during the holidays. We are customers too; we understand the frustration of long lines and high prices. However, it is not our fault and it would be nice if disgruntled customers would give us the courtesy and respect that we deserve. I know how it feels to be screamed at for things that are not my fault (i.e. long lines, the competitor has the same item for three cents cheaper, the store is temporarily out of an item, etc.).

If this description fits you, put yourself in our shoes and understand that every rude customer makes our day that much worse. Anne M. Stanek Spokane

OVER THE LINE

Get neighbors to help out

Re: “Youth hangout brings complaints,” (Nov. 19).

The police chief has a wonderful idea there, about having those who are complaining volunteer to help supervise the center. Maybe even have the neighboring business donate one or two hours a week of its employees’ time to supervise. And target kids who are causing the most problems and notify the parents. Instead of complaining and trying to close the center, turn their attention to helping be part of the solution. An outsider looking in. Jerry Cass Newport, Wash.

Level of learning up to you

Re: “Academy is a good idea” (Letters, Nov. 27).

I’m sorry Sarah Paulson felt disadvantaged by attending a public school in Idaho. Coming from Idaho should be no disadvantage for an institution in a state where their new governor is a “wrassler.” (Sorry, Idaho talk.)

Private colleges look for prep schools in applications for reasons that have little to do with academic credentials. Prep means either lots of money or paranoid parents. Wealthy students do not drain financial aid resources and usually become wealthy (generous) alumni. Kids from paranoid families are thrown in with the other (public school) group. You need to have some achievers to help a school’s reputation, as wealthy kids are not always self motivated. The wealthy parents tolerate this as long as their children keep this group at an arm’s distance.

You could have obtained just as good a liberal arts education by attending a local public college. Your future is in your hands, not in the gilt on your diploma. Kristjan L. Dye Cheney