CENSORSHIP
Censorship is a dirty word in the minds of most journalists. Today this page tries to explore the journalistic way of thinking in relationship to censors, not only to obscenities, but to holding back of the news.
Pre-trial publicity
Much has been written and said recently in regards to pretrial publicity, which tends to "sway" the jurors. It was impossible for the attorneys who tried Jack Ruby to get twelve intelligent jurors who were not aware of the pictures of his crime. Did he get a fair trial?
In Cleveland Sam Sheppard went free after a long fight through the courts. He used journalistic ethics as one of his main arguments. Whether he killed his wife or not really has not been decided.
Any profession, and journalism is a profession, must have ethics. But with the news media it is not clear black and white but most often a tightrope that must be walked. When the editor falls off one side he is neglecting his obligation to his readers. When he slips off the ether side he is denying the right of the American judicial system to the defendant.
Exactly where the tightrope must be placed has been argued by members of both professions. Seminars have been held. Still the middle area stays gray with no defined boundaries for the rope.
But certain things should be public record. When a crime is committed the public has a right to know. When a man is charged with that crime, again they should know . . . they should know he was CHARGED with that crime. They, too, must remember that he is not guilty of the crime until proven so by the courts of law.
Then what happens if the police are holding a suspect without charging him. Here the case becomes gray. Second, how much of the prosecution's or defense's case should the paper reveal before the defendant goes on trial. Here comes that gray area again.
Only the media can decide on this and each time it takes individual consideration. No rule can ever be drawn that handles all of the cases, all of the time.
THE SUMMER SESSION kansan Serving KU for 77 of its 101 Years
KANSAN TELEPHONE NUMBERS
Newsroom—UN 4-3646 —— Business Office—UN 4-3198
The Summer Session Kansan, student newspaper at the University of Kansas, is represented by National Advertising Service, 18 East St. New York, N.Y., 10622. Mail subscription rates: $4 a semester or $7 a year. Public second class postage paid at Lawn School of Commerce, Friday and employment advertised in the Summer Session Kansan are offered to all students without regard to color, creed or national origin.
The opinions expressed in the editorial column are those of the students on the staff of the paper. Guest editorial views are not necessarily the expression of the editor's views. Any opinions expressed in this Summer Session Journal may be misuse of The University of Kansas Administration or the State Board of Regents.
EXECUTIVE STAFF
EXECUTIVE STAFF
Managing Editor ... Robert Stevens
Business Manager ... Tom DiBlase
**FACULTY ADVISERS:** Business: Prof. Mel Adams; News: Blaine King
Censorship at KU
Censorship exists at the University of Kansas. But KU is no different than any community in the United States today.
Sure the LSD arrest or the panty raid tend to cloud the image of this fine midwestern university located in the heart of the Bible belt and called "Snob Hill." They blacken it just like the winning basketball team or the attendance of Jim Ryun or Miss America, 1966, add to it. But all of these facts are still news and the readers have the right to know.
... the truth which damages the University. The Kansan is basically on its own in gathering the news.
It must be accepted in the press today—bad news is the best news. The $200,000 fire at the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity made bigger headlines than the $2,000,000 grant for a new space center building. The firing of Jack Mitchell was given more space than the hiring of Pepper Rodgers. The arrest of one person on LSD charges or the panty raid at Oliver Hall had much more impact on the press than many of the good things which happen around Mount Oread.
Anytime there are people making news, there are people who want to manage the news. When something bad happens, they like to stifle the news flow. When something good happens, they like to propel the news flow. The officials at KU, from the chancellor to a professor, are no different.
The Kansan is fortunate in some respects to censorship of the news. No one from the chancellor's office sits in the newsroom with a big black pencil to cross off the damaging stories. No editor has been fired for printing the truth
But censorship still exists. Since the fuss and muss when the architectural plans were released with great fanfare for New Fraser, each campus building design has been snuck out and publicity is at a low. Very few people had little idea what the new Experimental Biological and Human Resources Building was to look like until ground was almost broken.
Many campus authorities still hold back news "to protect the individual involved." when most often they are protecting the image of the University as well. Sure the individual involved has some rights . . . but the people of the University have rights to know some of these things, too. After all, they are as much of this University as the person involved.
But basically the Kansan can consider itself fortunate. Much of the information stored in the heads of its editors and reporters comes from secret sources and can never be printed. But these bits of information are usually helpful to them later when trying to track down the big stories. Without this kind of cooperation the Kansan could never hope to serve its readers.
Yes, there is censorship at KU. There will always be. But it must be maintained in moderation. And the final decision to what goes in print and what is left behind should go to the editor. Only to the editor . . . not to those who like to manage the news.
The people say-
To The Editor:
Of innane editorial opinions, one suggesting that we return to the "good old days" of medieval morality and unenlightened male domination must rank first in triviality and therefore last in our consideration. Such an editorial was the "Chivalry is Dead?" blurb in the July 7 Kansan.
For those who missed it, this journalistic gem denigrated the modern woman of slacks and miniskirts who seeks fulfillment in "men's occupations" and who
has thereby buried femininity and consequently chivalry. Not alone is this the result of current fashion, but Miss Kalagorgevich contended, of "women's thrust for equality and place in society." And why not, she concluded. "If a woman doesn't respect herself, then why should men be expected to treat her with respect?"
Laudable sentiment (and no more than that) from one whose concept of the twentieth century woman shows grave misunderstanding supported by faulty argumentation.
2 Summer Kansan editorial page Friday, July 14, 1967
MODERN WOMAN has escaped the master - slave relationship which all previous centuries had imposed upon her to form a working partnership with man, proving
that mentality and muscular prowess are not invariably companions of the human organism. And she has done so without necessarily sacrificing that elusive feminine quality which does exist in woman—to even greater degree in the intelligent woman.
Let us finally accept woman as a being, biologically different from man yet his complement and counterpart in a mature relationship of mind and body. If we can see her in this light and with profound appreciation of all her qualities, then femininity can emerge self-evident irrespective of temporal modes of dress, and a trivial and superficial argument will have been hopefully dispensed with.
Marilyn Hall
being Serious
This editor remembers the first time he saw a "dirty" movie. It really was not such a movie in the class of such spectacles as "Sisters of the Sun," or "The Prey of Naked Virgins," but to him at that time it was most embarrassing. Being a naive Kansan from the Bible belt, he never considered that Kansan movies were censored.
It is interesting to note that the film which finally broke the Kansas movie censoring board was not an "obscene" film. It was "The Loved Ones." A film objected to by the three elderly ladies, who served as the protector of morals of Kansans, because of its poor taste in other matters.
Now the troika can no more slash through celluloid and guard residents of the Sunflower State against corruptness.
Then came the day for his rude awakening. He and a date went to the theater on a nearby army post . . . little did he know they did not have their plots reworked by the three little old ladies of Kansas.
He had seen the movie in town. It was decent. Sure it was suggestive. But it was still decent. As the movie began to flicker across the screen he began to see portions he must have
missed the first time through. But then it came A complete strip. Right before his very eyes. And in front of his companion's, also.
Today Kansans can join the rest of the United States and see pictures as the movie makers produce them. Ten years ago "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" would never have made it out of a first class studio (at least with their label on it), let alone by the Catholic review board. Yet anyone who watched it soon forgot about the defamatory language and the "dirty" deeds. The film would have been worthless without them.
In the Sexy Sixties morals have changed. More things are being brought out from dark closets and discussed. And the communicators of these things have changed with them. Yes, there is still snut. Smut that should (and some that could) only be read by deviates. These are the ones which state legislators are still trying to censor.
But in the land where Tarzan was once censored (Tarzan and Jane were never married) and Peter Rabbit (it was too sensational) was banned from libraries, today anything and everything goes. Good or bad, it will be that way until the Constitution of the United States is rewritten.
Another Trouble Spot