Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Aug. 13, 1987)
Editorial Fairness doctrine wrongfully abolished The Federal Communications Commission's decision to abolish the fairness doctrine last Tuesday is reminiscent of Reagan's policy to decrease government intervention in public affairs. This decision, however, will adversely affect the people’s ability to express opposition to television and radio programming. Because television is such a persuasive medium, the fairness doctrine is a vital watchdog over broadcasters who may present slanted views on important issues. Consumer advocate Ralph Nader is correct in his statement that the decision is a setback for minority views. Claiming the doctrine unconstitutionally limited broad casters' First Amendment rights, the FCC abandoned the nearly 50-year old policy when reports showed broadcasters had shied away from controversial issues because of the ramification of the fairness doctrine. The doctrine requires stations to cover controversial topics and air opposing views to these issues. It was design ed to promote free speech ami to provide open debate. But the FCC has done little to enforce its policy. The FCC reasoned that they did not have the right to se cond guess a station's editorial decisions. It violated their freedom of speech. ''In short. Government restrictions on speakers' rights injures the public's interest," said FCC member Diane Killory in an official statement explaining the decision. When considering air waves, however, the government does have the right to regidate their use and content. The re cent confiscation of a pirate radio station off the New Jersy coast proves that not everyone has access to this form of communication. As such it must be controlled to prevent abuse. Air waves are public property. The public should have the op portunity to use them. Broadcasters around the nation have hailed the deci sion. but say it will not effect the way they already present the news. It will effect the public's perceptions of the news, though. Without the ability to present opposing views, many sides will not be heard. The FCC hoped to encourage a marketplace of ideas by establishing the fairness doctrine and claims it is continuing this goal by abolising it. But the viewers must take the responsibility to listen and gather information. This option is not open to everyone, however. Television and radio are only one aspect — and a limited one at that. Minor charges for deaths show need for stronger law Wendy Cook was charged with driving carelessly and without a license Monday after the car she was driving jumped a curb on Franklin Boulevard and killed three peo ple Aug. 2. Each charge carries a maximum fine of $ 1 CM) These charges, however, are too lenient for the severity of the crime. Lt. Eric Mellgrun of the Eugene police department ex plained the laws vary depending on the level of intent. (Careless driving is when a person unintentionally drives in a manner dangerous to others while reckless driving occurs when a person willfully or wantonly drives with disregard for others. Mellgren said. Stronger charges, such as manslaughter, also rely on criminal intent. The driver must ha/e an implied intent. For example: driving under the influence of drugs, speeding ex cessively or operating an ill-maintained car. he said. The lives of three people are worth more than a $200 fine. New laws or rewording of the existing laws should be created for such incidents. ” WE SUPPORT THE REPEAL OF THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. THOSE WITH AN 0PP0SIN6 POINT OP VIEW CAN START THEIR OWN TELEVISION STATION.' Commentary Reagan: a case for impeachment In the wake of the Iran-Contra scandal, at least two disturbing aspects of the Keagan ad ministration have been brought to light: (1) the executive branch used the Constitution as a veritable foot rag, and (2) President Ronald Wilson Reagan's footprints are all over it. Commentary by Mike Drummond Reagan and members of his administration have broken numerous laws — major laws. Thus the president stands as a candidate worthy of impeachment. Hut the word "impeach ment" sends chills down many people's spines. Echoes of Watergate and the backroom treachery of "Tricky Dick" still ring in the American mind. Perhaps this is the reason the nation has lacked resolve to pro ceed with impeaching "Wrongful Ronnie." Yet no matter how bitter the word "impeachment" may taste to the American palate, the facts remain too glaring to ig nore: Reagan abused his powers of office — he broke laws. Because ours is a society bas ed on laws, and no matter Oregon Daily Emerald The Oregon Daily Emerald la published Tuesday and Thursday during the summer by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co. at the University ol Oregon. Eugene. Oregon. 07403 Daily publication will resume with the tall term The Emerald operates independently ot the University with ottices on the third floor ol the Erb Memorial Union and is a member ol the Associated Press The Emerald Is private property The untawlul removal or use ol papers is prosecutable by law General Staff Advertising Director Susan Thelan Production Manager Michele Ross Classified Manager Kelli Mason Assistant to the Publisher Jean Ownbey Editor Managing Editor/Student Govt New* Editor Editorial Pag* Editor* Sports Editor Photo Editor Night Editor Associate Editors Higher Ed/Adminutratton Community Advertising: Janelle Heitmann Stanley Nelson Carolyn Lamberson Eden God bey Angela Muniz Aaron Knox Shu-Shmg Chen Stephen Maher Mike Drummond Stephen Maher Production: Sandra Daller Ad Coordinator Kelly Alexandre. Eliot Knight. Diana Moy. Angela Muniz. Ted Shepler. Ingrid White. Kelly Williams. Serena Williams News and Editorial 6M-S511 Oisplay Advertising Md-3712 Classified Advertising 8M4343 Letter Perfect Graphic* SM SSIt Production M6-43ai Circulation and Business 6M-SS11 where one stands on the political spectrum. Reagan re mains a criminal and should be removed from office. Facts speak louder than rhetoric: In August of 1985, by orally approving the shipment of 508 U.S.-made TOW missiles from Isreal to Iran. Reagan violated the Arms Export Control Act. Moreover, when confronted with this, the president lied, and attempted to side-step the issue by saying the arms ship ment could have fit inside a small cargo plane. Maybe, if this cargo plane were the size of Rhode island. Reagan even went on to say on Nov. 13. 1988 that "The United States |read: President Reagan] has not made conces sions to those who [read: Ira nian government) hold our peo ple captive in Lebanon." But this is hardly the point; the point is he knowingly ship ped arms to Iran, a confirmed terrorist nation, which was a crime. In November of 1985. the Central Intelligence Agency provided aircraft and aid in shipping U.S.-made HAWK missiles to Iran without a presidential finding, thereby violating the Foreign Assistance Act. This circumvention of con stitutional procedure may not be as heinous as the one men tioned above, yet it alone is grounds for impeachment: It was a crime. Although the president recently has claimed he will capitulate with congressional r Letters Policy The Emerald will attempt to print all letters containing fair comment on topics of interest to the University community letters to the editor must be limited to 250 words, typed, signed and the identification of the writer must be verified when the letter is turned in demands that the legislative branch be notified of further covert operations, Reagan, on )an. 6 and 17 of 1986 authorized and subsequently failed to notify Congress about arms transactions to Iran, which con tinued from August 1985 through October 1986. With this Reagan violated the National Security Act and. again, the Arms Export Control Act. These, too, were crimes. And there is the Boland Amendment, arguably the most flagrant transgression of U.S law conducted by Reagan and his administration. The Boland Amendment pro hibited all federal funds for the purpose of... supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua." Not only did this amendment apply to the CIA and the Depart ment of Defense, it also includ ed “any other agency involved in intelligence activities." Yes. this encompassed U.S. Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North's National Security Council. Reagan, however, denies knowing of any monetary diver sions from the Iranian arms shipments to the Contras — the so-called "Freedom Fighters His brush with guilt is separated only by a thin thread — Adm. John Poindexter's testimony claiming he never told Reagan of the diversion in order to provide "plausible deniability." Poindexter’s testimony vvdS shaky, at best. And Reagan, -is president and commander-in chief of the armed forces, must remain accountable for any il legal activities that occurred under his watch. The diversion clearly was il legal — it was a crime. In light of these facts, im peaching President Reagan wouldn't be such a bitter pill10 swallow. In fact, it would be an appropriate dose of medicine to cure the ills Reagan has in flicted on this nation.
