opinion
ing risky
A Federal Communications Commission ruling was
passed on Thursday to the general public by the nation’s
media with little fanfare, as are many bureaucratic deci
sions. But because there are ramifications inherent in the
decision, we believe it demands closer scrutiny.
By a 4-1 vote, the FCC almost doubled the amount of
radio and television stations that can be owned by a single
entity, whether it be a company or an individual. And with
apparently little foresight the commission also decided to
remove all ownership restrictions in 1990.
The PCC adopted a “7-7-7” rule in 1954 that stated that
a single company or individual is not allowed to own more
than seven AM stations, seven FM stations, and seven televi
sion stations. Thursday’s ruling set a new standard, a
“12-12-12” rule, meaning that a single person or company
may now own 36 broadcast stations instead of 21.
When the FCC instituted the “7-7-7” rule it was with
the intent of guaranteeing a wide range of broadcast owner
ship. It is rare when a government agency allows common
sense to seep into its decision-making process, but that is
what happened to the FCC more than 30 years ago. The logic
was that without some restrictions the broadcast media
would ran into the hands or a tew.
Owning a station can be so profitable that some journalists
half-jokingly say that receiving a broadcast license is the
same as receiving a permit to print money. It follows that
without limitation the larger, more profitable stations will
swallow the smaller ones. It's a way of life for businesses in
this country. Bob’s Superette, just off campus, closed its
doors because it couldn’t compete with big markets; the cor
ner service station that was owned by the family down the
street is now corporate-owned; and the Courtyard is
threatened with extinction because Sacred Heart Hospital
wants a parking lot.
The FCC was wise to place sanctions on media owner
ship. While it’s unsettling to know that a few major corpora
tions control the country’s oil and food supplies, it could be
disasterous if broadcast ownership does not remain broad
based.
What is frightening about the prospect of a few in
dividuals or corporations controlling the broadcast media is
not what they might say but what they might not say.
History has shown that the power of the press lies in its
ability to inform the public not in its editorial stands. A ma
jority of presidents have been elected without the support of
the press; FDR, for instance, won orifc election with two
thirds of the nation’s newspapers editorializing against him.
People make their own decisions when they have access to
pertinent information.
It is that access that is in danger.
A major role of the media is to serve a “gatekeeping”
function. Editors — print and broadcast — are trained to sift
the news and they choose which bits of information, facts,
news and reports reach the general public. There always is
more news available then what is printed or broadcast.
Even without a concious effort to screen what passes
through the “gate,” the lords of the press, through time,
have fallen into patterns. Network news coverage in the
1950s, the Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer newspaper
chains, and the current publishing mogul Rupert Murdoch
are but a few of the “gatekeepers” noted for what they
allowed or allow into the public domain.
To ensure that the largest variety of news passes
through the “gates” it is necessary to maintain a broad base
of individuals or companies in control of the media.
The FCC’s decision makes it possible for those who
already control many “gates” to grow larger and gain even
more control.
If that happens, there certainly will be new meaning to
the phrase “power of the press.”
—
emerald
The summer edition of the Oregon Daily Emerald is
published Tuesdays and Thursdays, except during ex
am week and vacations, by the Oregon Daily Emerald
Publishing Co. at the University of Oregon, Eugene,
Oregon, 97403.
The Emerald operates independently of the Universi
ty with offices on the third floor of the Erb Memorial
Union and is a member of the Associated Press.
nwwi «no national
686-5511
686-3712
686-4343
Editor Michele Matassa
Managing Editor/Editorial Page Editor Jim Moore
News Editor Michael Kulaga
Photo Editor Michael Clapp
Associate Editors
Higher Education
Administration
Politics/Community
ASUO/Student Activities
Night Editor
Mike Sims
Mike Ouncan
Paul Ertelt
Julie Shippen
Michele Matassa
Reporters: Diana Elliott, Sean Axmaker.
General Staff
Advertising Manager
Production Manager
Classified Advertising
Controller
Susan Thelen
Russell Steele
Carrie Greaves
Jean Ownbey
Ad Sales: Rachel Bellamy, Richard Skeen, Julie
Bulrice.
Production: Sharia Cassidy, Kelly Cornyn, Kathy
Gallagher, Carrie Greaves, Kelly Neff, Michele Ross
Colleen Tremaine, Hank Trotter.
S«s?y... Hew VI0UU5 YOO UKI US to POSE ?
letters
No compassion
The Democratic Party calls
itself the party of compassion.
That’s rather odd considering
the facts.
Every war we’ve been drawn
into this century was under a
Democratic administration.
These Democrats usually pro
moted themselves as the
"peace” candidate but, alas, ac
tions speak louder than words
and the actions of these in
dividuals cost the lives of hun
dreds of thousands of American
men.
Also, even though science
proves that unborn children in
the womb feel pain at an early
stage of development, the
.liberals who control the
Democratic Party support abor
tion on demand.
And what of human rights? It
was Franklin Roosevelt who
recognized the Soviet dictator
ship in 1933, which was the
very year that Stalin murdered
more than 7 million Ukranians.
For better or for worse it was
Truman who dropped the
atomic bombs and it was the
Carter/Mondale administration
which was silent concerning
persecution of Christians in the
Soviet Union and which
recognized Pol Pot as the
legitimate government of Cam
bodia, even though this Marxist
madman killed one-half of the
Cambodian population.
The Democratic record speaks
for itself. No wonder the
Republican Party is growing —
especially among the young
who, unlike many older people,
are more skeptical toward emp
ty slogans and meaningless pro
paganda intended to
manipulate voters.
Michael Cross
Senior,
history, political science
Manipulators
In her opening salvo of at
tacks on President Reagan,
Democratic vice presidential
nominee Geraldine Ferraro ac
cused the president of being
“un-Christain” because he sup
ports cuts in social welfare pro
grams.
“My Bible,” said Ferraro in a
separate interview with U.S.
News & World Report (7/16),
“teaches that you have to clothe
the naked, feed the hungry and
house the homeless.” Indeed
the Bible does teach that.
However, the personal pronoun
“you” in Ferraro’s statement
refers to individual Christians
and the church, not to the state.
Yet many well-meaning but
biblically ignorant Christians
have been guilt-manipulated —
through the use of biblical
rhetoric about “compassion for
the poor” — intc supporting a
giant welfare state. ("The Bible
says ‘feed the hungry;’ hand
over your money!”)
A number of Christian
scholars (Dr. Gary North, David
Chilton and Dr. R.J. Ruch
doony) have written incisive
and devastating biblical criti
ques of the “Christian
socialism” espoused by pop
theologians like Ronald Sider.
In his book “Productive
Christians In An Age of Guilt
Manipulators” (a point by point
critique of Sider’s popular book
“Rich Christians In An Age of
Hunger”), Chilton relates an il
lustrative anecdote about a
debate between Dr. North and a
college professor who espoused
the “Christian socialist” line:
“Since he (the professor) was
speaking to a seminary au
letters policy
1 he Emerald will attempt to print all letters containing fair com
ment on topics of interest to the University community.
Letteri, to the editor must be limited to 250 words, typed and
signed, and the identification of the writer must be verified when the
letter is turned in. The Emerald reserves the right to edit any letter for
length, style or content.
Letters to the editor should be turned into the Emerald office.
. Suite 300, EMU.
dience, his lecture appropriate
ly had three points. First, he
said, the individual has a duty
to the poor. With an open Bible
before him, he admirably
defended this from Scripture.
Second, he observed, the
church has a duty to the poor;
again he quoted copiously from
Holy Writ, Third, he declared,
the state has a duty to the poor.
He then picked up the Bible,
closed it, and put it aside.”
Tom Visoky
Graduate, journalism
Ignore gender
So Mr. Mondale chose a
woman for his vice presidential
candidate slot. Big deal! A
liberal is a liberal regardless of
whether they happened to be
bom with XY chromosomes or
the double X variety instead. So
don’t ask me to vote for some
one because his running mate
has certain primary and secon
dary sex characteristics.
I’m going to vote tor the per
son who shares my opinions on
the issues. I’m certainly not
voting for Mondaie (I wouldn’t
have cared if he chose a her
maphrodite for the ticket)
because he’s too liberal on
everything from criminal justice
to defense. And 1 don't want a
return to Carter-style economics
either.
I encourage women to study
the issues and vote based on
who shares their opinions on
most issues — not because of
gender. After ail, if you want
that sort of thing to influence
your vote, then consider that
the only two women in the
Senate are Republicans, the on
ly woman on the Supreme Court
is Republican, and President
Reagan has appointed many
women to important posts
which were previously the ex
clusive domain of men.
Lori Parkman
1