December 11, 1997
Steven Reddicliffe, Editor in Chief
Radnor, Pennsylvania 19088
Dear Mr. Reddicliffe:
I greatly applaud TV Guide's on-going recognition and celebration of Star Trek through the collectors editions covers. In addition to being a fan of Star Trek, I've also been a reader of TV Guide since the early 1960s. But, I'm very disappointed in your presentation of the Star Trek captains.
True, each captain was presented but not in proper Trek chronology. Worse, it's insulting because - on the face of it - yet again white males AND a white female must FIRST be recognized before a Black man's rightful achievement can be recognized. Yes, you applauded Star Trek but obviously you don't know what "TREK" is about. Trek was not and is not about one race or sex being better than another. For one thing, Trek is about the individual being recognized for his or her accomplishments, or failures.
In your "From the Editor" article you saw fit to list the Trek captains in their proper chronology. If "race" and "sex" wasn't an ISSUE then why did you change the proper Trek chronology by sequencing Kate Mulgrew's "Captain Janeway" before Avery Brooks' "Captain Sisko"? Sadly, even your internet home page (during this period) positioned a picture of Captain Janeway before Captain Sisko.
Captain Kirk is my favorite. However, I equally respect the characters of the other Trek captains and the actors who bring these characters to life. Respect. Proper respect for the characters, the actors.
I simply request you "respect" the values of Star Trek should TV Guide decide to celebrate Star Trek turning 40 or 50! Please.
All covers © TV Guide
And then Parade Magazine did the exact same thing.