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.