To the editor:

The George Will column of March 4, “Public TV, dubious from start, now a relic,” featured in the Journal-World was a study in prejudicial stereotyping. I concluded that because he thinks “Americans are entertaining themselves into inanition,” that none of us should have the choice of television that is interesting, thoughtful, varied and provocative.

Why do “500 channels mock public television as crucial to diversity”? It is a form of diversity I can have without cable.

I seem to be one of those “poor people who cannot afford cable or satellite television” that Mr. Will refers to. I do not have cable because I need to save and I find that what time I do want to spend watching TV can be well spent if I have access to the programs public television offers. I don’t want to, as you say, “entertain myself into inanition.” I’m glad I don’t. As for diversity, I especially appreciate the great news hour guests who speak to both sides of the issues on the “Jim Lehrer Hour.”

“Vestigial, purposeless” and “troublesome” — these biased and harmful words, as well as the sarcastic remarks referring to the “refined minority” and “rereading Proust” seem to be both defensive and cynical.

Why does a columnist need or want to lash out at a program he may consider obsolete? I enjoy public television and I find that, even without the “social smog” Mr. Will seems to feel television has become, if there are good things available, I want to be given the chance to enjoy and benefit from them.

Barbara Curry,

Lawrence