Readers Write 7/16


Tragedy becomes circus

I agree wholeheartedly with Jim Osterman’s article, “We lost a few other heroes, too, lately” (Opinion, July 4), regarding the media coverage of the death of Michael Jackson. Don’t get me wrong; I think the man was a genius when it came to his music. But when the media turns something this tragic into a circus, something is terribly wrong with our value system. I have read all the information about his abusive childhood, but he was not the only abused child in this country. The way he chose to abuse his mind, body and soul with surgeries, drugs and lifestyle is not something I would want my children or grandchildren to emulate. As with Anna Nicole Smith, I am sure that “Entertainment Tonight” will keep this as headline news for the next couple of years. How sad.

Connie Tillman, Woodstock

Coverage unwarranted

It is truly a sad state of the U.S. media in general, that the news of Michael Jackson’s death has been so predominant. There are soldiers fighting for our country who died the same day; there are fathers and mothers who molded children in our great country who died the same day; there are children gone too soon who died the same day; other “celebrities” who died the same day and even beloved pets that died the same day, that deserve equal media attention. I don’t get the media coverage of the death of Michael Jackson.

Claire E. Smith, Marietta

Report all war crimes

In the interest of fair reporting, “Israeli forces accused of war crimes in Gaza” (News, July 2) should have been titled, “Amnesty International accuses Israel and Hamas of war crimes in Gaza.” In the interest of balanced reporting, the article should have elaborated some of Hamas’ war crimes, such as shooting thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians from densely populated civilian areas in Gaza. True peace cannot come to Israelis and Palestinians as long as the war crimes of Islamist terrorists, such as Hamas, are ignored.

Toby F. Block, Atlanta


A time to be serious

At first glance, Kyle Wingfield’s “No time for race ‘cowards’ ” (Opinion, July 5), which argued for bravery and seriousness in our national discussion about race, seemed thoughtful and well-reasoned. This, despite my fundamental disagreements with Wingfield over the preferred outcomes of that discussion. Unfortunately, Wingfield squandered much of my goodwill when he referred to the Supreme Court as “the Supremes.” Notably, he took this potshot only when referring to the activist court of the 1970s, reserving the official “Supreme Court” for our own, more conservative court. Leaving aside the fact that it was an “activist court” that overturned the legislative statutes underlying segregation, the Supremes were a Motown act of the 1960s, not the Supreme Court of the United States. If Wingfield was looking for a serious discussion about race and the judiciary, this was not it.

John Dunn, Decatur