4 Wednesday, February 23, 1972 University Daily Kansan KANSAN comment Editorials, columns and letters published on this page reflect only the opinions of the writers. Kansan Staff Photo by ED LALLO Tweedle Dum . . . Senator Henry "Seoop" Jackson brought his presidential campaign to Kansas last Saturday night when he fundraiser for Democratic fund-raiser in Topeka. Jackson came to friendly territory when he set foot on Kansas soil. State Democratic leaders are notoriously conservative, having much in common with Jackson. In fact, as early as last fall, Governor Docking indicated that he might support Jackson for the nomination. In his Topeka speech Jackson outlined those issues that he considers to be of top priority, spicing his comments with the hackneyed partisan attacks that we'll be hearing and more of this election year. Jackson is counting on broad conservative support, and consequently presents a tough-guy image, probably in the hope that his wife, Elizabeth of Richard Nixon's conservatism, will decide to fight fire with fire in 72. Saturday night jackson asserted that "The Democratic party must show that it can provide responsible leadership on the (busing) issue." He also said Democrats must be prepared to make crime a major campaign issue and talk more about law and order. The U.S. defense department has strengthened Jackson, so we will have a stronger position from which to negotiate. He says, for instance, that while busing isn't the answer, we can't have segregated schools. And he asks why a factor in the law and order question At the same time, Jackson seeks to mitigate his conservatism a bit, probably in an effort not to alienate the opposing of the Democratic party. In view of this conservatietainted-liberal tactic, it would seem that if the Democrats did nominate Jackson, and if Nixon is nominated, Americans would have another nochoice election come November. That we do not need. Mike Moffet Associate Editor Garru Wills Readers Respond Maude; Stables; Bible Harold and . . . To the Editor I am rather dismayed, not to be told that Barbara Barb was malted by labelling her by the title characters in "Harold and Maudie" as "depressing," but in "Dickens." The love scene which so repellished Schmidt did not involve, I might add, rape, seduction, A MacGraw-citee-peek-a-boo-sex, exploit you are there-detail, or the usual other leering Hooyood muscle, in the ground, the scene is certainly unique, but hardly "reputative." From this point, the film moves not in "a fatal plunge down hill," but in "a full climb upward. Harold is ultimately saved by Maude, and the redemptive power of love has portrayed more convincingly." Beer Sexism? To the Editor: Frank Kelly Carbondale, Pa., Graduate Student -Bill Arnold, Lawrence Junior -Paul Johnson McPherson Junior The Stables recent advertisement (Feb 17) in the Kanana was, at the very least, poorly placed—directly under an advertisement by the February magazine and their ideas haven't come across. Our point is not that the Kansas wizard would advertisements, but blatantly dehumanizing. Our question now to the women of the KU community—you do consider it a good thing to offer customers to the Stables if you don't go there because you are being used. You tell them that they use pool tables and frolicking female wonder if they can differentiate between the ownership of the pool tables; bars and frolicking Bible Again However, the objections raised by Miss Todd, etc., do not in the least contradict the other quotes. Women are not portrayed as women, but they do indeed fulfill a very useful purpose (i.e., they give birth to men—"man is born of woman") that one idea is independent of the other is of woman. The idea of an idea of a divine order is not. Above all, remember, when God in his merciful way decided to save the human race, he came as a man! There is no question of misinterpretation and certainly no question of misquotation in the Bible. We read the Bible. They were textually correct, and we supplied no evidence to prove their meaning was quite evident. To the Editor: Tom Chester, Topeka Senior Bryce Kresie, Topeka Senior demeaning of the poor, and the forcible "interposition" of those fearsome "white-coated bureaucrats" between some children and their parents. Remember the olden days, when the Right Wing used to attack big government? Now it thinks our government is not big and intrusive enough—Washington should be handing out more defense contracts and smooping on more mans. The threatens rarely get a hold of the citizens in a refrain against crisms. Nixon's Child Care Stance So it came as a relief, last December when they called sing the half-forgotten songs against creeping communalism again. The occasion was Nixon's veto of a bill that had been introduced by Nixon gave the Right its cue in his vetting document, which said the bill approved by Congress would foster "communal approaches to child-rearing over against the family—with criticism Strom Thurmond had made of the bill—and Right-Wing publicists were soon in full cry. Nixon had saved us from 'the white-coated Sergeant Buckley' phrase who would perform Mad Scientist social experiments on the unprotected young. Who knows—they might even infect their minds with Liberalism. As National Review put it: "The child's values and attitudes would be shaped by the kind of psychoactivists and so on who would be interposed at the earliest possible moment—even during the first 18 months." The parent's parents. "That 'interposed' is good—almost as good as Lytton Strachey's 'interpose my body.' The word fulgens the fact that the child development is available if parents want to use them. This optional factor is what distinguishes the bill Nixon vetoed from one he gleefully signed during Christmas week. This latter bill made money for teachers and mothers with school-age children—and therefore made day-care for those children mandatory. The President, who did not want to split up the family by offering it optional learning adds, was willing to jeopardize his own larger budget for schools, through ahead of time its next inefficient feature, the punitive measure aimed at largely mythical "welfare moochers." This measure adds new tests, training programs, and day-care schemes to force only those in financial need to only marginally existent jobs. It will involve the loss of federal money, the Where, then, is the Right Wing caterpillar against this law's statism? If the government can foster their free cooperation with child-care programs, surely it is more endangered when the government can force a child in government day-care centers. Oh no, it doesn't work that way. Freedom can only be denied to those with a right to be free. The generous American spirit thinks that those who want freedom should that right. If they can ask for a dole, it only because they are slavish in soul. They must be forced out to the employment line there to "redem" them. If they want to protect their children, and re-enter the status of full citizenship. Then they will be among those whose freedoms the President is anxious to protect from being taken so remote as the furnishing of early learning aids to parents who want it. In short, our President will vigilantly guard those who need no protection. And as for those who do need help—well, it's all their own fault. Taking away their kids from them might make them shape up. Copyright, 1972, Universal Press Syndicate James J. Kilpatrick "Wasteland" News Bias WASHINGTON - Edith Efron's book, "The News Twisters," came forth from the Nash Publishing Co. on October 11. Since then, the shells have been used to broadcast television networks were guilty of gross bias during the presidential campaign of 1968. The thesis, of course, is valid. Any English-speaking adult, possessed of eyes, ears and access to a television set, must know the thesis is valid. To a considerable extent—though not as blatantly as before—the situation documented by Miss Efron continues to this day. The value of Miss Erfron's book lies not so much in its elaborate documentation, though this was indispensable to her work. Her book, "In the pathological dissection of the body of 'news' as such," she compels us to think upon these things, and these things are important for the whole process of opinion formation in our country. What is "news"? God alone knows. At some point in his life, every editor, reporter and professor of journalism struggles to compose a satisfactory message. That success, David Brinkley came closest, perhaps, in his laconic remark that "news is what I say it is." But the trouble with epigrams is that they yield insights of truth to the virtue of brevity. It is not quite so brutally simple. Even so, Brinkley has it just --about right. The essence of news lies in the process of selection. A happening, in itself, is not news; it is not news until it is reported. And who decides whether a happening should be reported? Who selects this happening in preference to some other happenings? An editor's honest answer, just as Brinkley says, is "I do." By Sokoloff Griff and the Unicorn "Copyright 1972, David Sokoloff." Her documentation provides a thousand telling examples. One issue in the fall of 1968 was U.S. military casualties among men named during the seven-week None of this, in turn, was news at NBC. Oddly, NBC reported no news whatever—not a single comment about the war policy; but it was news at NBC, to the tune of 1,017 words that the war was opposed by, among others, Tom Hayden of NBC and Jack Yale and a Connecticut matron. When it comes to putting together a prime-time network news program, this process of selection is what the game is all about—and the process is unbelievably complex. There are dailies and big days. A happening that might be used but not used on Tuesday. Some happenings lend themselves to visual presentation; others don't. TV is partly show biz; There has to be something light. Producers, writers and anchor men are prisoners of the clock. But when someone shows up at the studio, someone has to have made the decisions. This is news tonight; and this is not. This is not a pattern of news; it is a pattern of bias—and for this pattern the network news executives have to be held accountable. As we move into the new era, network evening news will want to keep the pattern of 1968 in mind, and be wary. Such decisions have to be personal; no computer can make them. They are the products of a culture that has merely another way of saying that they are personal opinions. Mia Effron's point is that in 1968, the judgments—or opinions—that constitute liberal bias in the network news. This was not news at ABC. At ABC, which carried 413 words in support of the war, it was news—1,478 words of news—that Senator Fulbright, Paul O'Dwyer, Senator Jock Dick Gregory, Senator Jude Dick Gregory and Vanessa Redgrave opposed the war. period of her study, CBRS carried one item only in support of that policy. This was a 267-word excerpt from a speech by Lyndon Johnson on October 9. But CBRS carried 20 items in this period, and 13 words on 13 different evenings, when the policy was opposed. Look at the record more closely. It was "news" in the judgment of CBS that the war was opposed by John Gilligan of Ohio, George Ball, Senator Morse and Eldridge Cleaver. Copyright 1972, The Washington Star Syndicate, Inc. America's Pacemaking college newspaper THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN Kansan Telephone Numbers Newsroom—UN 4-4810 Business Office—UN 4-4538 Published at the University of Kansas during the academic year except in 2014 and 2015. A second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kan 86044. Accommodations, goods, services and employment advertised offered to all students without regard to color, creed or national origin. Opinions expressed are not necessarily indicative of the university's policies. NEWS STAFF News Adviser . . . Del Brinkman NEW NEWSLETTER DELIVERY Editor New Media Editor Makeup Artist Makeup Artist Campus Editor Neesler News Editors Bita Haugeman, Neesler News Editors Eric Kranmer, Jewell Scott Copy Chiefs Jeeyneer Norman, King Kling Assistant Sports Editors Sully Catton, King Kling Sports Editor Simpson Assistant Sports Editor Barbara Spurrock Feature Editor Barbara Spurrock Editorial Writer Barbara Spurrock Wire Editors Joydeun Nancy Jones Makeup Editors Dick Hay, John Goodrick Photographers Ed Lalio, Rit Netner, Greg Sorber, Tom Thurnau, Young Office Manager Toona Rush Software Developer Greg Sorber, Tom Thurnau, Young BUSINESS STAFF Business Adviser . . . Mel Adams Business Manager Associate Business Manager Advertising Manager Advertising Manager Associate Advertising Manager National Advertising Manager National Advertising Manager Promotional Advertising Manager Promotional Advertising Manager Creative Director REPRESENTED FOR NATIONAL ADVERTISING BY National Educational Advertising Services A DIVISION OF READERS' MEDIA SERVICES, INC. 360 Lexington Ave. New York, N.Y. 1,0017