Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 21, 1989)
Court cameras don't mean press freedom l,ast Thursday, the Oregon Supreme Court voted unani mously to break an almost three-decade tradition that ban ned news media cameras from state (rial courts. Until now. Oregon had been among a small number of states to bar news cameras from trial courtrooms. But while we'd like to accept this decision as one more broken barrier against freedom of the press, our excitement has been tempered somewhat as it is only under several re strictions that the news media will lie allowed to bring cam eras and audio recording devices into trial courtrooms. The rules allow a trial judge to deny a request for televi sion coverage if the judge believes coverage would interfere with a fair trial or efficient administration of justice. While we obviously don’t think television coverage should he al lowed to interfere with a fair trial, or with administration of justice, it is well known that members of the Oregon State Bar have long voiced their opposition to allowing news cameras in the courts. Bar members also have suggested that a majority of trial court judges also oppose the use of cam eras in the courtroom. But what could stop a judge from denying television at cess simply because he or she didn't want it there? Another section of the rules, with which we don't agree, states television cameras must lie operated by ( ourt staff members rather than by television news personnel. But this rule could lit! even more disruptive it untrained court clerks were set free to use equipment valued in the range ol $30,000 to $40,000. This is undeniably a job for professional news photographers, not amateur camera fanat ics. for years, jurists have feared cameras in the courtroom would interfere with the judicial process We hope this most recent step by the Oregon Supreme Court will dispel these fears and allow the publii a wider examination of the courts. But lor now. it looks as though it's up to the courts to determine when. if. or what information will be distributed to the viewers Dirty tactics not startling from North, trial lawyers In the summer of 1UH7, we Americans were faced with a major governmental scandal and coverup sc heme (the' Iran-Contra hearings) that loft us feeling insecure and disap pointed in the? nation's loaders except for Oliver North, whom many thought to be the epitome of a hero throughout the proceedings. Almost two years later and with the* Oliver North trial set to begin, we are once again faced with coverup schemes and withheld information, courtesy of tin; North trial law yers Those old feelings of insecurity and disappointment are resurfacing. And Oliver North? Well, now he's just a regular guy trying to sell the farm to cover his tracks (and avoid (it) years in prison and $:t million in fines). laist week, Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and inde pendent counsel Iarwrence Walsh had hoped U S. Distric t Court fudge Gerhard Gesell would accept their plan to pro tect against unnecessary and uncontrolled disclosures of in formation of vital importance to national sec uritv in ef fect. allowing the lawyers to protest as perceived threats to national security surface during the* trial. But Gesell showed little sympathy to this plan, lie re jected it outright, saying that Thornburgh can protect na tional security only by filing an affidavit "scuttling the case m wnoie or hi pari. Thornburgh, of course, is reluctant to file the affidavit protecting certain classified information, as he does not know precisely what classified information North’s lawyers intend to use. (Two main charges against North conspira cy and theft of government property were dismissed last month following a Thornburgh affidavit.) These tactics, of course, are justifiably lawyer-like, hut they are unseemly nonetheless. So, as the American public awaits the proceedings of the Oliver North trial, a tangled web of deceit in the govern mental system, there are at least two things we cun be sure of: Oliver North and the trial lawyers definitely are not he roes. _Commentary Policy_ The Oregon Daily Kmerald welcomes commen taries from the public concerning topic s of interest to the University community Comments must refrain from personal altai ks on the i haracter of others. Page 2 Editorial TOGA! TOGA! TOG^',, (ib? ) TOU TO&\ TO(A T06* _Forum_ U.S. cover up racks El Salvador Bv Kevin Hornbuckle Tver wonder vvh\ our gov eminent s<-mI^ $1 t million .1 da\ to support Kl Salvador's milil.irv dictatorship? II you're like most people, you spend mole time worrying iiImiuI whit li TV programs to avoid To l>e sure, it'll be television that tea< lies I" S nti/.ens about our neighbor in revolt Sin h vras the case during the revolution in \ii aragu.i that did not i .ill li the attention ot I S i ili/ens until the cold blooded murder of a i ountry man was broadi ast on tile six _Commentary_ 01 loi k news As bis shaking partner recorded the scene, re porter Mill Stewart of AIM! was made to lie on the street as one of Somoza s National (luards men casually parted bis skull with a round from a U.S.-sup plied assault rifle Shew ked ami surprised were the viewers who bad no pre vious knowledge ol the carnage their tax dollars bought daily Those less ignorant about our government's role and Somo za's terror rightly concluded that the victim was relatively lui kv: most of the ('.yard's vu tuns were fori ed to endure long periods ol torture before being allowed to die. The mainstream media in our country are of course happy to help us quit Us forget the would-be lesson of the thou sands ol deaths caused by our country's murderous foreign policy in Central America Af ter all. ( apilalist media is ilriv tin not hs the mission to in form, but rather by the mission to profit Kmbarrassing exposes do not make a ( onsumer hap PV But imagine, for example, the audiences that ssould he drawn to their TV sets if they i ould view live i overage of K! Salvador's revolution as was done with Vietnam during that war No such link though. To get that sort of exi itement sou'll base to settle lor the weekly remakes of history un ahashedls hroadi ast in the form nf tl«> popular new Vietnam war TV shows The Pentagon knows from experience that if U S citizens knew of our country 's role in hi Salvador, they'd have dornestii revolts for the same reason there were domestic, revolts in response to the Vietnam war Isn't it true that the average I' S citizen is intolerant of the vie Utilization of innocent peo ple' The warmakers think so For it is the Pentagon's goal .mil the media's duly to keep the populace ignorant of that which we would not tolerate The Pentagon denies at cess to embarrassing information and reporters self i ensor. Thus, re porters are rarely allowed out side of San Salvador, and most simply would rather not make reports that they know will not get past the editor’s desk. So we do tolerate the victimi /ation in Kl Salvador, partially because of lack nf accurate in formation For example, a lie that the media dutifully reports is the assertion that the war in Kl Salvador is now a "stale mate." It strains ( redulitv to at t.u h such a label given that the Salvadoran military receives $15 million per day in addi tion to thousands of U S train ing hours for its officers. The Pentagon claims that the relied army commands fewer than 7,000 combatants, the I'Ml.N has no vehii les or forts Yet in nine years of fighting and more than 70.000 deaths the superiorly equipped and trained Salvadoran army loses daik more territory and weap ons to the revolutionaries The IMI.N has thrice overrun some of the principal military posts, including ones inhaiiited bv I S military trainers In No vember amid broad daylight the rebels attai keil and nearly destroyed the National ('.uard headquarters in downtown San Salvador Whether horn ot ig norance or deceit, the eharat terization ot the war as "stale mated" flounders hopeless for lack ol support At the same time there is support tor the case against in tervention (,'onsider the words ot Sen liarbara Mikulski (I) Mtl i. who interviewed ,i pens .ml vvoniiin who witnessed .in attack on Dei I!. lutll by a I S trained elite battalion: "Many of her family were killed She personally saw chil dren around the age of eight be ing raped, and then (the sol diers) would take their bayo nets and make mincemeat of them With their guns they would shoot at their faces Tliev would slit the stomach of a pregnant woman and take the child out as d they were taking eggs out of an iguana Little has changed since 1‘IIU Still some people refuse to believe that our virtuous government supports this sort of terrorism in El Salvador Lib erals who do believe it Ire quently cry out, "it's just so senseless.” Hut U.S. foreign policy can he seen as eminently sensible once one sees that the U.S. policy serves a well-de fined purpose as does terror In short, it is ostensibly the "pro tection of U.S. interests." Real ity is of course something else The U.S. taxpayer generously finances the profit schemes of the company stockholders that ow n. for example, textile mills once located in South Carolina There U.S. workers earned less than $4 per hour and their Sal vadoran replacements are paid approximately $1.50 a day The company cuts its costs further by eliminating safety equip ment Workers who try to unionize for better pay and work conditions .ire abducted by the death squads Thus we are left with brutalized people in K1 Salvador, and unem ployed people in our own country The multinational cor porations are left with higher profits That s < apitulism As the Salvadorans hei nine more organized in their opposi tion to the economic explora tion made possible 1' S foreign policy Washington's response is increased militarism A natu ral product of this is the asi en dam e to power of Id Salvador's ultra right wing AKKNA parts A combination political para military organization, AKKNA Turn to Commentary, Page 3
