You put someone on your cover who consistently loses money, but the name of your magazine is Worth. The joke is on the readers.

You should have listed the above facts, because readers have a right to fully understand who is giving them advice—not a PR piece that is so positive and worshiping of its subject that it makes this reader (and I am sure others as well) ready to cancel their subscription.
Cindy Walker, Dallas

Dear Editor:
Mark Cuban has it right. He shows the basic understanding that newspapers are best when owned by people—and not by publicly traded corporations. Cuban knows that the notion of mandatory growth does not apply to every business venture.

The Los Angeles Times thrived under the Chandler family and now it falters, made to endure seemingly endless budget cuts by a bean-counting board. Newspapers were not meant to be run by bean counters—nor by Wall Street.

When the Chandlers owned the paper, it made enough money to have one of the top five foreign-coverage operations in the world. The newspaper won prizes for its public service reporting. It didn’t have to satisfy stockholders; it had to satisfy the community it served and the high standards of its owners.

And this plague is nationwide—the Poynters are gone in St. Petersburg, Fla., the Grahams are gone in Washington, D.C., the McClatchys were immensely successful with just three papers in California’s Central Valley, but now spread beyond their basic capabilities to satisfy the corporate demand for "growth." That growth demand is unnecessary when a newspaper makes enough money for one family.

My grandmother, who published two newspapers in Indiana, once said, "You can always tell a town by its newspaper." Unfortunately, publicly owned newspapers now put the lie to that statement. People like Mr. Cuban, who want to truly serve their community and still make money, can make it right again. I hope.
Peter Toll, West Linn, Ore.

Family Finances

Dear Editor:
I played professional basketball for 11 years and now run the Lawrence Funderburke Youth Organization, a nonprofit that serves at-risk youth in the area of financial literacy. I agree with several important points made in "Avoiding Entitlement" (March 2007), but I disagree that parents should refrain from briefing their children on the basics of finance.

I grew up on welfare in a single-parent home; my wife comes from a blue-collar, middle-class family. We feel it is vital to teach our daughter the basics. She has a piggy bank where she allocates money for savings, church and to spend on personal expenditures.

For children ages 9 to 18, we should teach financial planning, budgeting, savings, investments, risk-management and credit. Those who fail to grasp the importance of these subjects, even in a privileged environment, are at a severe disadvantage when they reach adulthood. Why? Because our impulsive society tells children, "Satisfy your wants, whatever the cost." I’ve seen many cases where more money has simply amplified an out-of-control life.

Our program, Money—Keepin’ It Real!, has improved financial knowledge by 60 percent. The subjects are challenging, but we teach them in an engaging way.

Children are astute, and, when taught at their level, they can grasp and learn to cherish the wealth of information available on the topic of finance.
Lawrence Funderburke, Gahanna, Ohio