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