To the editors:
"As much as we hate to grind one ax two weeks in a row," Michael Miner said apologetically in "Trial by Georgie" [Hot Type, January 12], "we feel compelled to respond to last Sunday's column by Clarence Page."
Pardon me for mentioning it, but I thought Michael Miner was a media critic? My god, man, then don't apologize for doing what Chicago needs dozens of others just like you (and even stronger than you) to do!
Grinding axes is exactly what you should be doing. Don't take one but many looks at Clarence Page's work, its place within The Chicago Octopus' larger opus, and the B.S. about Oliver North having enjoyed a "fair" trial, where instead of "fair" we should read a courtroom escapade that enabled the national media, the legal system, the Iran-Contra investigators, and the foreign policy elite to ensure that nobody would ever find out what really went on--unless they could escape the tentacles of the cover-up system, that is, the system Page won his Pulitzer Prize for serving so diligently, indeed, the system which he continues to serve by writing B.S. about Noriega's "ability to receive a fair trial in this country . . . [being] as much a test of American moral authority as the invasion of Panama was a test of our military might."
Say what? A "fair trial" for Noriega? Just like Oliver North's "fair trial" was? How about good old "American moral authority"? And Panama having been "a test of our [sic: Page means the United States, but he's cheerleading, which is what he gets paid to do, though no one's supposed to mention it] might"?
I say any media critic worth the mantle either criticizes dribble like Page's (who is hardly alone in this regard) or finds a new line of work. But whatever you do, Michael Miner, don't apologize.
Patti Szymarek Waukegan
Michael Miner replies: