Rush to judgment

Re “Liberals & Limbaugh,” Opinion, April 5

I was deeply disappointed in this article and in the contribution from a representative of my alma mater, the University of Southern California. If this is the objective style of journalism that is being modeled at the Annenberg School for Communication, then the school is part of the problem that many of us find with mainstream journalism today.

I was hoping to see a balanced analysis by representative local liberals.

What we got from the four liberals were simply critiques of Limbaugh’s style and personality. As is most often the case, all we got from these people was personal invective -- and not one example of challenge to any position that Limbaugh has taken or reported.

This nation is in dire need of honest and meaningful debate. We long for balanced forums, such as the late Bill Buckley’s television debates with knowledgeable liberals.

Unfortunately, The Times let us down on this one.

Paul Comi

San Marino

--

You have again proved to be an organ of hypocrisy. You print a wonderful article by the thoughtful Klavan, then print comments from four noted liberals who all claim to have listened to Rush. Tell me, did you have the four picked before you printed Klavan’s piece? How empirical is that? No wonder some refer to your paper as “the incredible shrinking Times.” It’s not just for the amount of content, but because of a lack of thoughtful analysis.

Mark Phillips

Los Angeles