Is it "Only Rock 'n' Roll"? (Letters to the Editor).

I am writing in response to the article "Is It 'Only Rock 'n' Roll'?" by Steve Bonta (THE NEW AMERICAN, April 8th issue). I will start off by admitting that Lam biased: Lam young; I am a liberal; and I love rock and roll music. That being said, I would like to state that I was displeased with this article. While all of the contents of the article are true and accurate to some extent, I think that the article generalized rock music to an unfair degree. Certain rock acts can influence listeners in a negative manner, but for every destructive rock act there is another that aims to accomplish nothing short of "the refreshment of the soul." I realize that the objective of this article was not to objectively detail the entirety of rock music, but a clarification that stated "certain factions or types of rock music may be contributing to the degradation of society" would have made for a much more fair assessment.

The biggest problem with this article, however, is the total breakdown of objectivity at its conclusion. Bonta's article was reasonably factual and objective until the concluding paragraph:

Fortunately, a wide variety of genuinely uplifting, edifying music is still available, from the timeless works of the classical masters to the refined rhythms of the Big Band era, the soulful romance of Hit Parade favorites, and many other wholesome genres. Winning the culture war requires us not only to understand the baneful effects of the "diabolical bawling and twanging" of today's popular music but also to seek out the refining and even ennobling influence of music at its best.

In my opinion, this paragraph destroys the credibility of the entire article. The writer's opinion has no place in objective journalism, and its presence conveys to me that the writer has some ulterior motive that he is ...