Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 6, 1987)
Editorial Role of media chooses candidates The media has taken over the role of the party bosses in screening presidential candidates. John Sears, Ronald Reagan's campaign manager in 1980. said last month By scrutinizing presidential candidates in the media, public opinion has become the deciding factor for candidates un sure of staying in the race. But as television and newspapers, the most influencial forms of media, are being bought and produced by conser vatives. the pressure on the democrats has intensified. Joe Biden and Gary Hart are two primary examples of how the media screens candidates through public opinion. The media "has been asking in public a lot of the ques tions that party leaders used to ask the candidates in private." Sears explained. In the past, party bosses would interview a candidate. If he was rejected, "quite often the public never would know' the exact reason." he said. In the early campaigning for the 1988 presidential elec tion. press coverage has caused Hart and Biden to drop out of the race. This has strong ramifacations on morals and standards in the United States that are ultimately formed by the information they receive. Granted. Biden and Hart's actions were irresponsible, but so were Reagans’s actions, or lack thereof, in the Iran/Contra affair. The public's opinions, however, rely on media coverage and who it projects as good or trad. Reagan ultimately has come out ahead while Biden and Hart were forced to resign. Sears stated the differences between Biden and Reagan in terms of displaying facts is that "Reagan has never misled anyone about who he is." The press has portrayed Reagan as a remote leader not responsible for his workers' actions and the public has ac cepted it. Overall, it appears that honesty and sincerity, or the illusion of honesty and sincerity, is the best policy. Biden's and Hart's mistakes came from trying to cover up their indiscretions. This technique has worked for Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis. Although he tried to deny his campaign manager's role in releasing a tape of Biden and the speeches he plagerized, Dukakis has managed to maintain a steady se cond place (following Jesse Jackson) in the polls. The key has been his openness during his campaign. His national apology to Biden for his part in the scandal em phasized his sincerity. Even his wife willingly admitted her past drug addiction rather than have it come up latter in the race. The Democrats also have lost candidate Patricia Schroeder due to the scrutiny of the press. Schroder said she "would shrivel" under the "artificiality and isolation" of a presidential campaign. This reasoning also has kept other qualified candidates from even attempting to join the race. Sears' analysis of the media's role is accurate, but reveals nothing new. The media has been the screening room for candidates for years. In the end, however, it is the readers and viewers responsibility to be aware of this power, and any biases the execution of this power may entail. The information received from television and newspapers is only a superficial basis for a deeper account of the story. Commentary Bork's views distorted by critics Why are so man> people hostile to the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court? Is it because — as his detractors maintain — that he is a “conservative activist” (which is something of an ox ymoron. if not a contradiction in terms)? Is it because he is a Commentary by H.C. Hutto bigot and a sexist who would deny racial minorities and women equal rights? Or is it because Bork is not intellectual ly and professionally qualified? In short, what accounts for the vociferous opposition to Bork that has increased in volume almost to the point of hysteria? I'm not an expert on legal matters. 1 don't know much about law or constitutional history. But what I think in flames the opponents of Bork is not so much intellectual or legal arguments as much as emo tional and — dare I say it — ideological concerns. In the 19008 the Supreme Oregon Daily Emerald The Oregon Daily Emerald la published Monday through Friday eacept during eaam week and vacation! by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co , at the University of Oregon. Eugene. Oregon. 07403 The Emerald operates independently ol the University with offices on the third floor ol the Erb Memorial Union and is a member of the Associated Press The Emerald is private properly The unlawful removal or use of papers is prosecutable by law Qenera! Staff Advertising Director Susan Theten Advertising Sales: Ten Boring, Gary DeLossa. Tom leech. Catherine Lilia. Rick Mart/ Laura McKinney. Heather Mull. Joann Nelson. Julie Paul. Barbara Rogers. Scoti Thorkildson. Joan Wlldermuth Production Manager Classified Manager Assistant to thePubi lager e Publisher Michele Ross Kelli Muon Jean Ownbey News and Editorial Production Circulation Letter Perfect Graphics SSS-4S43 SSS-SS11 6SS4SS1 SM-Mtt Editor Managing Editor News Editor Editorial Page Editors Sporls Editor Photo Editor Graphic Design Editor Special Issues Editor Entertainment/Sports Segment Editor Night Editor Stanley Nelson Scott Maben Eden God bey Angela Muniz 'Steven Hoenlach Aaron Kno» Shu'Shmg Chen Lorraine Rath Kelly Kodekaas H C Hutto Andrew LaMar Aasoclale Editors Community Stephen Maher Higher Education/Administration Michael Drummond Student Government/ Activities Carolyn Lamberson General Aaslgnment / Entertainment Will Hoi bed Reporters: Craig Harris. Gary Henley. Andrew LaMar. Jell Morgan. Ingnd Petersen. Cam! Swanson. Kelvin Woe Photographers: Shedyn B»orkgren. Maria Corvallis, Andy Crlpe, Dusty Et«M Derrei Hewitt. John Giuatma. Bobbie Lo. Ross Martin Andre Raman. Dan Wheeler. Michael Wilhelm Production: Sandra Dollar / Ad Coordinator Kelly Alexandre, ftonwm Nlcoie Aahton, Virginia Bamaga. Eva Cohen. Stephanie Drynan, Dolores Ftmeo, Shannon Gaither. Lisa Haggerty. Stephame Holland, Oietdre Ketty, Eliot Kmghl. Chifa Knp*. Jung Lee Bobbie Lo. James Mason, Angle Muniz. Ted Simpler LTaa Svanevik Ingrid White, Kelly Williams Serena Williams. X Kang Xie Court, under the leadership of Chief justice Earl Warren, ruled on a series of constitutional cases that had the effect of dramatically enlarging the scope and purview of the court itself These cases, such as Roe v. Wade, interpreted the con stitution in such a way as to ex tend and enlarge civil rights. Roe v. Wade gave women the "constitutional right" to an abortion. Other rulings confirm ed and broadened the rights of racial minorities, in particular blacks. The Warren court, as a result, was an "activist" court. It sought to interpret and enlarge certain rights in light of social and political developments — developments that the framers of the consitu lion, in spite of their acumen, could hardly envision. Were such actions proper? Were they legally and constitu tionally sound? judge Bork ap parently has reservations about many of the Warren court's decisions — not so much because of their consequences (or so he has asserted), but because of the questionable methods the justices used in ar riving at their decisions Bork is an advocate of judicial restraint. In essence it is a view that believes the judiciary should not impose its own socio-political views in its deci sions. but should rule on cases with the original intent of the framers of the consitition foremost on their minds. (This is a valid and even admirable position to take, but not a sim ple one. After all. it's not always clear what the framers had in mind in the first place.) People who oppose Bork. most of whom can be crudely described as "liberals." are disturbed by Bork’s philosophy of judicial restraint, although perhaps they don't know It. They have grown accustomed to an activist court, especially one that is liberal in temperament and seeks to broaden the scope of individual rights, even if it means extending the authority of the court into areas that some people (such as Judge Bork) believe are not within its do main. Liberal philosophy, after all, is essentially a visionary philosophy. Society needs to be changed, to be improved, so as to be more like the ideal envi sioned. Such a philosophy sees political “activism" as an im portant instrument in enacting these changes. Therefore, it’s understandable why a man like Bork, who advocates judicial restraint, would be vilified by those who advocate judicial ac tivism. and in fact, have depended on it to bring about some of the most significant changes of the last two decades Laws, however, are made by the legislatures. The judiciary is supposed to decide whether these laws are constitutional. The Warren court enlarged and expanded this role, which, from a strictly judicial point of view, may not be proper. But we have to keep in mind that at the time of the Warren court this country was undergoing a social revolu tion It’s quite likely, for in stance. that if the Warren court had not been so vigilant in affir ming civil rights for minorities and instead left such matters to the legislatures, black people in the South would still be regard ed as “second class citizens." But 1987 is not 1967. Society has undergone dramatic — and in many cases, particuiary civil rights, beneficial — changes. Judicial activism is no longer desirable. And the argument that judicial activism usurps the role of the legislature is a com pelling one. Abortions were performed before Roe v. Wade, but each state legislature per mitted or forbid it. according to the (indirect) wishes of the voters. Roe v. Wade changed that. The Supreme Court decreed that abortion was more than just a question to he decid ed by state legislatures It was of such importance that it became a "right" equal to freedom of speech and freedom of worship, and that individual state Turn to Bork, Page 3
