Readers Go in Search of a Critic’s Hidden Agendas

Cynicism has us in a bear hug.

The old lines separating news and commentary no longer apply. There’s nothing especially new in seeing lippy local news readers unburden themselves of their sage observances on live television; in recent years, however, the aegis of analysis has been widened to also accommodate TV reporters who freely offer their unlabeled opinions, whether in tags at the end of stories or in leads.

Their views form a cloud of disbelief, a cloud that’s thickest over Washington. Fearful of being spun, media do their own preventive spinning, seeing in every public figure a prince or princess of darkness. Thus, when President Clinton speaks on television, his sincerity is automatically questioned. When House Speaker Newt Gingrich makes a statement in front of the cameras, it’s assumed that behind each thought lurks a Machiavellian agenda.

This skepticism encompasses many areas. Hence, “political correctness” becomes a dreaded scarlet letter, a brand regularly applied to concepts of social consciousness, as if it were unthinkable that moral values, not pragmatism, underlie such concepts when espoused either by private citizens or professional politicians.

Politicians deserve our close scrutiny. Few Brady Bunches exist inside the Beltway. Yet it would be nice to keep an open mind about them at least some of the time, just as we in the media want the public to keep an open mind about us. Fat chance.

The cynics, too, are victimized by cynicism. To some, for example, the media are a cabal, an intricate web of conspirators linked by a desire to undermine the nation’s best interests. When we are bad, individual ineptitude is usually discounted by the public in favor of a darker scenario, that of media members colluding (how, by conference call?) against democracy.

This cynicism is also deployed against critics. If you express a tough opinion, for example, it can’t possibly be because you believe what you wrote. Oh, no. You must have something up your sleeve.

Aha, now my own hidden agenda emerges: Will the following letter writers please get off my back?

Actually, these are excellent letters, the kind of thoughtful, opinionated responses to TV columns that anyone would welcome. Almost.

*

“The best part of Peggy Noonan’s series starter on PBS,” writes Harry Wald of Westlake Village, “was that she didn’t say much. Her smug attitude and condescending tone spoke louder than her few spoken words, however.

“I understand why you were less critical in your review. You had to show Newt’s Congress that, yes, PBS could be less liberal and perhaps less honest.

“Ms. Noonan has no right to talk about truth when her whole professional life has been devoted to funneling lies to the various cardboard characters she wrote for. And now she is perplexed why morality is at its low ebb in American life? What hypocrisy!

“Would I sacrifice PBS so she could have her moments in the sun, build her credibility as she prepares more lies for Republicans for the 1996 campaign? That is what this is all about.

“Those of goodwill and some intelligence always search for truth. But we know that truth is transitory. Absolute truths taught by religions in the name of God are as different as the different religions themselves. And when Ms. Noonan talks of the absolute truths of the Christian religions, she must of essence lose all of us who are not Christians. But we all strive to learn truth whatever our faith or lack of it.

“Her two-second sound bite, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ rightfully ridiculed by Bill Moyers, showed how really shallow she is. The Catholic Church has been the greatest purveyor of death over the 2,000 years of its existence.

“As a growing-up youth I was taught that beauty was truth and truth was beauty. Yes, Ms. Noonan is very pretty but not at all beautiful; her prettiness is even generic. I wonder how she sees herself.”

My tiny gripe relates to Wald’s second paragraph. Actually, I didn’t give Noonan’s series a favorable review for political reasons. Honestly, I just liked it.

*

“You clearly missed the point and poignancy of ‘Serving in Silence,’ ” writes Lynn A. Rabin of Tujunga. “First, the movie was nonfiction, save for whatever dramatic license the writer and director were permitted by Col. (Margarethe) Cammermeyer. This was her story as she wanted it told. The director, Jeff Bleckner, worked with the colonel to let him tell a love story while carefully navigating the legal waters of her pending case.

“Second, and more important, you missed the sensuality that every woman who watched this movie saw. Especially the lesbians. Ignoring the colonel’s Norwegian heritage (which you did), ignoring her years of hiding her sexuality from herself (which you did) and ignoring her lengthy military career (which you acknowledge), women express their feelings for and to other women with totally different language than either gay men or heterosexuals. We are not as overt, we are not as direct. And especially a woman of Cammermeyer’s age. There was absolutely nothing unreal about what Mr. Bleckner put on the screen in regards to the way the relationship unfolded.

“There were wonderful sensual moments we’ve never seen before on a major network in prime time. The look into the rear-view mirror when they first meet was hotter than what we are shown on ‘NYPD Blue.’ Why? Because it set up a sexual tension that women, at least lesbians of a certain generation, understand. The campfire at the beach, the ‘first date’ scene and the kiss were much sexier, and warmer, than you led your readers to believe. Maybe they could have held each other more often, but I didn’t miss it and neither did the women I watched the show with.

“Kudos to Alison Cross and Jeff Bleckner for a groundbreaking television movie. Maybe next time (and I’m sure there will be a next time), you will try to find your ‘feminine’ side and view such a work with a little less testosterone and a lot more warmth.”

Implied in Rabin’s last line is that what I really expected from this movie was not what I said I expected--more physical affection between the protagonist and the woman she loved--but some kind of orgy, a couple of lesbians really getting it on in front of the camera. Not true.

*

Finally, as proof that Rush Limbaugh aficionados will tolerate no criticism of their man, no matter how whimsical, here is this note from Ross L. Birdsall of Fullerton, responding to my call for the withdrawal of Limbaugh from the airwaves.

“Speaking of term limits, really, now, hasn’t Howard Rosenberg been around long enough? You bet!”

As a non-cynic, I ascribe no hidden motives to Birdsall’s note. I believe he wrote exactly what he meant.