COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.require "let.pub[let,jmc]" source
C00004 ENDMK
C⊗;
.require "let.pub[let,jmc]" source;
∂AIL Mr. George Osterkamp↓KQED Television↓ 1011 Bryant St.↓San Francisco, CA∞

Dear Mr. Osterkamp:

	Thank you for your letter.  This is to renew the request for
a "free speech opportunity" like those offered by commercial TV
stations.  Please say whether you think this applies to KQED.

	Frankly my memory of precisely what questions were asked
is fading, but I remember the respectful tone in the one case
and the hectoring tone in the other.  As to moral judgments on the
news, it is possible to maintain your neutrality on terrorism
and still ask questions about whether the spokeswoman was guilty
of conspiracy to commit arson and other crimes.  PG&E has as much
right to conduct its business without bomb threats as KQED.  The
relevance of this point is that if NWLF were threatening to bomb
KQED or some institution more precious to KQED than PG&E, I think
one would see ⊗Newsroom take quite a different attitude on what
questions should be asked and what statements should be emphasized.

.sgn