OPINION
October 19, 1984 Page 4
Published since 1889 by students of the University of Kansas
The University Daily KANSAN
The University Daily KANSAN
The University Daily Kannan USPS 600-640 is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Staffer Flint Hall. Lawrence, Kan. 6045, daily during the regular school year and Wednesday and Friday during the summer session, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays and final periods. Second class payment帖住 Lawrence, Kan. 6044. Subscriptions by mail are $15 for six months or $24 a year in Douglas County and $10 for six months or $3 a year outside the county. Student addresses change to the University Daily Kannan 118 Staffer Flint Hall. Lawrence, Kan. 6044.
DON KNOX Editor
PAUL SEVART VINCE HESS Managing Editor Editorial Editor
DOUG CUNNINGHAM
Campus Editor
DAVE WANAMAKER Business Manager
LYNNE STARK MARY BERNICA
Retail Sales National Sales
Manager Manager
JILL GOLDBLATT Campus Sales Manager
SUSANNE SHAW
General Manager and News Adviser
JOHN OBERZAN
.Sales and Marketing Adviser
CBS on trial
Courage — and possibly changes — are necessary in light of the libel lawsuit filed by retired Gen. William Westmoreland against CBS.
A 1982 CBS documentary accused Westmoreland of having falsified reports of enemy troop strength in South Vietnam. His intention was allegedly to make it look as if the United States was winning the war and thus needed more troops. Mike Wallace, narrator of the report, described the situation as "a conspiracy at the highest levels of American military intelligence."
However, distractions such as the celebrities and the historical events involved in the trial have tended to divert attention from crucial issues.
One crucial issue is a person's right to seek redress for a critical story that in his opinion libeled him. Another issue is the right of the press to write critically of public officials.
The press is not popular with many people, but it plays a crucial role in informing the public. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized this fact in its landmark 1964 libel ruling, New York Times v. Sullivan, when it allowed the press a margin of error to pursue the truth through free and open debate.
Public officials — expanded in later rulings to public figures — can recover damages if they can prove that publication was made with knowledge of the falsity of the story, or reckless disregard of whether the story was false.
The court noted "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open." It said that "erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and . . . it must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the 'breathing space' that they 'need to survive. . .'"
A third crucial issue is the outcome of this or any other libel trial. The jury in the Westmoreland case, which is made up of six men and six women, will sit through weeks of conflicting testimony from experts and wade through about half a million pages of documents. Then the jury must reach a decision.
An obvious problem is how any jury can be expected to arrive at a coherent decision after such an overload. The temptation might be to sock it to the rich, arrogant press. Indeed, the press loses up to 80 percent of libel cases taken to trial, but about two-thirds of those decisions are reversed on appeal.
This is not a good sign. The current rules on libel, tangled by countless court decisions, are perhaps too complex for juries of peers to arrive at proper decisions and need to be changed. For example, the Sullivan decision's emphasis on the state of mind of journalists requires a discovery process, often lengthy, to study intentions.
Perhaps the law fails to express the public will, and maybe the public wants its officials to be able to sue the press more easily. The loser in the end, however, will be the public. A large libel judgment might not destroy CBS, but a similar decision would drive a small paper out of business. Then the public would lack the source that had informed it in the past, not perfectly, perhaps, but diligently.
CBS investigated an issue of public concern, which is its right. Westmoreland has taken the matter to court, which is his right. Now the jury must show courage if it is to defend the integrity of both the judicial process and "free debate."
Ugly victories
Ah, the thrill of victory; the agony of defeat.
After the past weekend, maybe that should read: the ugliness of victory; the relief of defeat.
At least the residents of San Diego and Lawrence did not have to endure the mindless destruction and drunken violence that took place in the "victorious" cities of Detroit and Manhattan.
What can be said about the nature of American athletic contests when they culminate in destruction, arrests, injuries and death?
One insightful Detroit fan came up with what must be the euphemistic comment of the year:
"I know there were some rowdy fans tonight. But this is the World Series, and you've got to expect some kind of rowdiness."
The truth is that what happened in Detroit and Manhattan could have happened almost anywhere, including San Diego and Lawrence. The residents of those San Diego and Lawrence were just lucky this time.
For years sociologists have been telling us that we live in a violent society. But is it no longer possible to celebrate a team's victory without destroying something or causing injury to someone else? Has the line between competition and violence blurred so much that the two are indistinguishable to some people?
If so, victory has, indeed, lost much of its luster.
Pot Shots
I really like the "White Bikes" proposal by our Student Senate leaders. Their plan offers the possibility of reducing the number of buses needed on campus, making both fuel and cost efficient. Furthermore, the program requires no senate financing so that it should be financed by nonaffiliates to revive its financing or the potential of an ugly "bikebusters" campaign.
In fact, this novel transportation reform has so inspired me that I have developed an even better plan. I call it the "Jiffy Jiruksha" plap.
Jinnikshas are small. two-wheeled carriages drawn by one or two men. Popular in
Step, step, step. POOF
Won't somebody please teach the guys on this campus how to wear their Polo cologne?
Charlie Himmelburg Laurie K. Minghee
I have probably become the most accurate Polo cologne detector in the Midwest. As I walk across campus it seems that every five feet I catch a tail-curling whiff of the stuff.
I will catch a baby-caring winnin' with the band. I will admit to having a weakness for the kind of man who wears it. And I will admit to opening the sample bottle in the department store to get a quick thrill. That Ralph Lauren sure has a say with women, hmmm?
But any woman can tell you that moderation is key with scent. Just dab it on and breathe deeply. It will calm your mind.
the Orient for centuries, they would thrive on a RU campus where the population density was less than 100 people.
Because they would have students chained to them, my carts would be hard to steal (one drawback of the White Bikes plan). More importantly, they wouldn't require any physical exertion from the passenger (another drawback of the White Bikes plan.)
University officials are decidedly cool about the idea, but rumor has it that Chancellor Gene is already liking the concept. Genie has already lied out an order voucher for a sedan chair.
Hundreds of now-ideal students from work study could be gainfully employed pulling these carts, thus making it possible to ride bus fare and work the work-fare, less bus-fare," you might say.
scent. "poor/strong perfume is one of the biggest turnoffs," says the November issue of Glamour magazine. "Use scent to invite, not repel."
I don't know what you want to invite, but it has to be better than repelling. Bug spray repels. OFF repels. (If you "repel" someone, does that mean you "pel" them again?)
I can understand if you happened to spill the bottle on your only clean pair of jeans as you were leaving for your midterm. I can forgive the ones who have such intense colds that nothing could penetrate that stuffy nose. But please have mercy on MINE.
But please I wouldn't douse on the Avon Sweet Honesty I have left over from the ninth grade just to get even with you.
Don't make me do it.
In a once popular music video, John Cougar Millemccall dances around a filling station, accompanied by the happy representatives of middle and working class America and high school cheerleaders, to the strains of his song "Pink Houses."
From the first time I saw the video, I had a sense that something didn't fit, and after I heard the album and actually read the lyrics, I found out why "Pink Houses" is a very down song about the fact that many Americans lead dead-end lives. But if that's the case, why is the video about an America where everything is hunky dory?
I was hard pressed to think of many videos
Michael Robinson
that made any kind of political statement; Billy Joel's "Allentown" and "Goodnight Saigon" are a couple of notable exceptions. And even one recent video that I have seen which depicts Ronald Reagan and Konstantin Haskhovich shows us use it more as a grammick than a statement.
Why is that? Are songwriters not writing any political songs, or are artists and video producers simply afraid to put something controversial on the air?
I'm not sure, but what disturbs me is that we aren't really supposed to get anything from the songs anymore except a vague, amorphous, happy glow, even from a song such as "Pink Houses" whose lyrics have something to say.
When it comes to MTV, messages are out,
bubble gum is in.
The social transition of movie theaters
This is not good news.
There are millions of us who don't go to movies anywhere near as often as we used to, and for one good reason the other people in the movie theaters.
Specifically, the other jabbering jawflapping people in -the movie theaters.
It has become commonplace for moveioges to converse in audible tones either with one another, or with the characters on the screen. No one has been able to place a precise date on the moment this phenomena began, but it is generally accepted that it happened in the years following the introduction of television to American society.
In our parent's day — or so we are told — people went to the movies and showed respect toward their fellow members of the audience. Conversations, we are told, were rare — and when they did occur, they were whispered and brief. Moviegoing, in short, was a civilized experience.
A fellow in the front row bellowed. "Shut!"
There is no longer any guarantee of that. When you go to a movie these days, you can almost expect that at least one group of patrons in the theater will decide to discuss the film as it proceeds — and will do so in tones that the rest of you in the auditorium can hear. That's if you're lucky. If you're unlucky, you will end up in a theater where the patrons are talking not to each other — which is at least understandable, if unexceptible. A more serious story I refer to this as the "slut-nut syndrome." I first observed it during a movie in which an actress was telling an actor playing a psychiatrist that she has been romantically involved with too many men.
This startled some of the rest of us in the theater. The film actress — not
gone to hear the man in the theater, of course — continued to tell the on-screen psychiatrist that she was troubled by her romantic habits; she thought they might be symptomatic of deeper problems.
"Nut!" the man in the second row screamed.
sometimes it is better not to wonder what is going on inside the minds of these movie-theater soliloquists; but, as I began to mention a few paragraphs back, it is safe to
BOB
GREENE
Syndicated
Columnist
assume that all of this started when television sets became a part of most American households. In the comfort of their own homes, people begin to feel free to talk aloud during television shows; sad to state, the practice spread to movie theaters, with distressing results.
Up until now, those of us who are unhappy with this development have been able to say: Well, at least we know that movie theaters were never meant to harbor this kind behavior. Those other folks may be the theatre creators; they're too dumb to see they re not at home, but at least we know the proper way to do it.
Now, though, that appears to be changing.
There are said to be approximately 20 of these theater-restaurant-bars throughout the
Recent news stories have reported the advent of movie theaters that feature food and drinks served by a film crew during the screening of the films.
A reporter who visited one of these enterprises noted that the patrons were seated not in the traditional rows of theater chairs, but in large, upholstered swivel chairs clustered around coffee tables.
country, mostly in Florida, Georgia and Connecticut. More are expected to be on the way. The emporiums are said to operate under a variety of names: "Pub and Cinema"; "Pic-ter"; "Brew and View"; "Pitcher Show."
The reporter observed. "The clusters are set up so that each group or couple can chat quietly during the interview without disturbing any one else."
Hah. This is the beginning of the end, of course; when cinema owners start seating their patrons in conversation pits, and start sending waitresses around to see if any refills are needed on the beer, it doesn't take a genius to see that the social transition of American movie theaters is almost complete. First, people who went to the theater started behaving at home, in their own dens back at home, now the movie theater owners are trying to make them feel as if they are really in their own dens back at home.
There are several alternatives.
Your question, of course, is what you should do about all this.
You can work up your courage and stand up to the next person who starts talking in a movie theater while you are trying to enjoy the film; You can tell the person in no uncertain terms that if the talking continues, you can't be held responsible for your next actions. You can flex your muscles and let the veins in your back pop
You can buy a video recorder and rent home movie cassettes so that you can watch your favorite films at home. This is acceptable, but slightly ironic. In order to achieve the peace and quiet you used to expect from a movie theater, you have to learn to be meanwhile, all the people who learned to chatter to the TV sets in their living rooms are now chattering inside the theaters.
You can patronize one of the new Pub and Cinemas, but plug earphones directly into the establishment's sound system so you hear the movie and nothing but the movie.
Failing all that you can do something truly radical:
Read a book.
LETTERS POLICY
The University Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten and double-spaced and should not exceed 300 words. They should include the writer's name, address and phone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University, the letter should include his class and hometown, or faculty and off-fellowship. The Kansan also invites individuals and groups to submit guest individuals. Columns and letters can be mailed or brought to the Kansan office, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit or reject letters and columns.
1