Columnist Leonard Pitts finds nothing to complain about in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s comment in 2008 about Barack Obama having a good chance of being elected president because he is “light-skinned” and has “no Negro dialect.” That’s because what Reid said was correct, Pitts argued, albeit indecorous and impolitic. “The gist of Reid’s comment,” Pitts wrote, “is that a dark-skinned man who announced his candidacy thusly — ‘I’m gon’ run for president. I ax for your support’ — would have trouble being taken seriously. I find that an unremarkable contention. George W. Bush couldn’t pronounce ‘nuclear’ if you put a gun to his head, and you need a GPS and a Sherpa to get through Sarah Palin’s winding utterances, but their race buys them at least a measure of forbearance that — call me crazy — I don’t think a dark-skinned candidate could expect.”
The irritating scheme in which television commercials automatically spike in volume could soon be a thing of the past. By voice vote, the House approved a bill aimed at stopping TV ads from being played louder than programs. The bill would require the Federal Communications Commission to enforce broadcasting industry guidelines on uniform sound. Broadcasters for years have failed to comply with their own standards. Some critics complain that Congress shouldn’t waste its time on this issue. Others note that a solution is as simple as turning off your TV. But why should viewers need to do that, just to escape an annoying advertising ploy in their own homes? Advertisers shouldn’t be able to dictate the volume level of your television in your home. If broadcasters were smart, they’d take steps to enforce this reasonable standard before Congress legislates the issue. — Philadelphia Inquirer Follow us
