Editor:
I found the article "Blaming Reality TV On O.J." by Jack Neworth to be anything but a Laughing Matter! While being expertly written, it nonetheless was a nasty, unworthy hit piece. If there's something to be laughed at here, it's Mr. Neworth's use of phrases such as: "should have been;" "most experts speculate;" "according to some sources;" "this was revealed;" and "earned a reported..." This is the cheapest form of expository writing imaginable and not worthy to be placed as an op-ed essay in your paper. (Surely this is not your formal editorial stance?) Also, Mr. Neworth later tells us that, "Apparently knowing his friend was guilty as sin, who can forget the shock on Kardashian's face...?" This kind of simple-minded rhetoric is quite sophomoric. He later contends that "reality T.V. has seriously diminished the collective I.Q. of the U.S," while informing us that certain of our physically-deformed citizenry ("huge butt") are unworthy to be able to earn $100 million and be "obscenely rich." Apparently, he doesn't understand the reality and power of social phenomena. I feel that Mr. Neworth's failed attempt to coalesce his own personal opinion about O.J.'s guilt with the advent of reality T.V. is inept and wrong. Mr. Neworth obviously wants to create a universe in which only his personal worldview is valid. He'll need a better argument than the one he's presented in his essay.
James R. Brennan
Santa Monica
