March 13, 1998

Dear Editor:

I believe in the First Amendment, that all Americans should have the right to speak their minds. However, along with that must go the responsibility to assure that one's thinking is based on facts, especially when major news networks broadcast the statements made by commentators and guests.

I am finding it increasingly difficult to view news shows as it is almost as certain as the sun rising each day, there will be some form of anti-Clinton material, material which often negates the necessity of relying on facts.

As I state in the below letter to ABC, I am lucky in that I am an avid reader and can rely on written news sources for a more fair representation of on-going situations.

Fifty percent of the adult population, those people who are functionally illiterate, are not as lucky and must rely on the spoken word, whether it is guided by facts, emotions, fabrications, distortions, or merely allegations.

I wonder how other Americans feel the same and submit the below to you for consideration.

Ed Lewis
Email:elewis@shighway.com

Just who the devil does Jones’s advisor think she is?

I had the misfortune to be viewing Good Morning, America, this AM. I have heard idiocy from ABC’s choice of commentators in the past which angered me at the audacity and lack of reasoning powers they exhibit to the world. But, Jones’s advisor this morning took the cake.

The woman (listened to her for a few seconds and decided her name wasn't important enough to take notes on) kept referring to the President of the United States as a sex-crazed or sex-obsessed man. She made misleading statement after misleading statement and never even approached answering the question she was asked. She so muddled the interview I can’t recall the question Charlie asked her.

Apparently, he couldn’t either as he never succeeded in getting her on track. It was as if she had her response already prepared regardless of the question asked. It wouldn’t have mattered if she had been asked about the weather conditions in Little Rock.

Her’s was a prepared response with only one purpose - to bash President Clinton and a rather feeble attempt to unjustly influence American listeners against Mr. Clinton.

Maybe he did have an interlude with Jones. Maybe he did have an oral sex affair with Lewinsky. But, sex-crazed. Even ten or twenty affairs would not necessarily make him sex-crazed or obsessed. Her terminology is totally inappropriate to the evidence; actually, the lack of evidence in this case.

I was left wondering - just what put the twist in her underwear? Additionally, if she were my advisor, she would be immediately terminated. The twist, wherever it came from, short-circuited her brain.

Oh, and one last thought remained with me. In the past, I viewed GMA whenever I had the opportunity. But, no more. Since she is what GMA considers news worthy, this morning’s viewing of the show, shortened by my changing channels, was my last.

I just wish all Americans had the ability to read, hence,the choice, rather than to have to listen to what one must only be only to term, ravings, which are of late the norm from anti-Clinton spokespeople on major network news shows.