Images in Journalism
Although I live in the hinterlands of Pittsburgh, I have always enjoyed the periodic opportunities I get to read The Sun.
Your newspaper usually reflects high journalistic standards, and I respect those standards.
It was with great surprise that I read Edward Gunts' March 22 architectural review of the Christopher Columbus Marine Biotechnology Center design. Quite honestly, I read nothing but a hatchet job, when there is no apparent reason for such a review.
Mr. Gunts refers to the Teflon skin as being "organic." This would certainly surprise most biologists! "Subdued high-tech detailing"? The Teflon skin is "surprisingly lightweight."
Surprisingly? Does Mr. Gunts expect a Teflon roof to weigh as much as eight inches of concrete?
Of more importance is his flighty criticism of the design itself.
"Giant ribbed prophylactic."
This is journalism?
Thomas Stephen Terpack
Clarice a Hero
Despite the success of "Silence of the Lambs" ours is no more the "Age of the Anti-Hero" than any other time (editorial, April 12). In films and books we have always been drawn to the more shady characters. This is not because we seek them as role models, but because they are more realistic.
People are complex, with both positive and negative traits. We wrestle with different impulses every day, and -- in most cases -- the good wins out.
But being interested in anti-heroes does not mean that we cheer them on. Hannibal Lecter is not the only character rewarded in "Silence of the Lambs." Clarice Starling makes a fine positive hero in any day and time.
Beck Is Wrong
Joan Beck just doesn't get it. Her "For Women, Abortion Can't Be the Whole Story" (Opinion * Commentary, April 8) was narrow-minded and misleading.
Ms. Beck depicts herself as a feminist who happens to be anti-choice. Talk about an oxymoron! You can't be anti-choice and a feminist at the same time. The two things are mutually exclusive. Come on, folks. The April 5 march in Washington was not about abortion -- it was about feminism, empowerment, equality.
Anyone who attended the march could clearly recognize the themes of the day: women's health care, day care for children, equal wages for men and women, a heightened role for women in politics. And yes, most women's organizations agree: abortion is the bottom line. If women can't have control of their own bodies, they have control over nothing. You start with abortion -- the essential issue -- and you move your way up.
Well, since Ms. Beck is a syndicated columnist from the Chicago Tribune, I won't harp on her. But what's with The Sun? I know that the opening of Camden Yards was a major event in our city, deserving of thorough coverage, but to shunt the pro-choice coverage to a small column just above the fold (with no picture) is shameful (but that fast-breaking chicken-catchers story sure deserved its color photo).
Maybe 30,000 Marylanders attended opening day at the stadium. Easily twice that number of Marylanders attended the march. I know that The Sun has been sloping to the right for some time now. Butyour neglect of the pro-choice march wasn't just conservative, it was sexist.
The Sun assumes a certain degree of ignorance of its readers that is insulting when it prints the likes of Joan Beck's article (Opinion * Commentary, April 8). It was clear that Ms. Beck has not done any research regarding the women she wrote about. If she had, she would have known that women's groups have been and are continuing to fight for all areas of reproductive rights research. And Ms. Beck doesn't seem to understand that since contraceptives are not 100 percent effective, we must preserve our reproductive rights. Do some reading, woman!
Ms. Beck asserts that abortions are obtained for the purposes of advancing in a career, or developing intellectually, or to avoid dependency on men. She obviously has read none of the many surveys printed as to what drives women to the last resort of abortion. The reasons given in the surveys are very personal, emotionally wrenching reasons which each woman knows.
Ms. Beck states with authority that "what's wrong is that women have focused on abortion as a major means to a necessary goal." Well, we know what Ms. Beck thinks women's goals are. But, due to her lack of research, she is wrong again. The goal is saving women's lives.
Lawmakers are not going to force women to have children if women don't want to have them. And women will risk their lives, if they have to, in order to limit the number of children they bear no matter what laws are on the books. Ordinary law-abiding women have, and will again if the law changes, place themselves outside the law to end an unwanted pregnancy.