Viewpoint The Battalion Wednesday Texas A&M University . - March 28, 1979 Live house TV coverage: A bore By DON PHILLIPS United Press International WASHINGTON — Dull, stale, sterile, blah. Those words describe the House of Representatives in action on television. For a couple of centuries, the House chamber never saw a TV camera except for the occasional presidential speech to a joint session. On March 19, that changed Z as the House provided full gavel-to-gavel ' coverage of its sessions. To many of us who have watched the ' House for several years from the press gal lery, the dullness of House action during * its first week on the tube came as a mild * surprise. We have seen plenty of debate — dull, * occasionally funny, sometimes exciting — * but it seems that television brings out the - worst, or perhaps the least interesting side Z of a chamber that can be plenty interest- Z ing. The TV picture won’t always be dull, of -* course. From time to time, some reason- - ably powerful debate will flow from that orange and blue carpet which obviously “ was not tailored to TV cameras. But why was the usual run-of-the-mill week so drab when viewed through a Z piece of glass? The answer apparently lies in the phi- ; losophy of the coverage. That philosophy is, very simply, to cover House debate. And as anyone con- ~ nected with Congress can tell you, debate Z is the least interesting and least effective Z part of any legislative body. The exciting part, the significant part, ~ the effective part of Congress takes place « in committee rooms, in cloakrooms and in Z private offices. To the extent that important matters ^ take place in the House chamber, they * happen in small huddles of congressional > leaders, in hushed whispers, in quick £ nods. Just as baseball can be dull unless you know “inside baseball” — the signals and ^ other bits and pieces of behind-the-scenes drama — Congress can be dull unless you ^ know the inside baseball of floor action. Why won’t you see this congressional Z inside baseball? > Because House-paid employees — not *■* commercial television technicians — are C controlling the cameras and they have Z strict orders not to let you see it. ‘ House members are fearful that net- work technicians would do just that — ' - scan the floor to catch strategy huddles or arm-twisting sessions. Why, the networks might even catch members sleeping. Or maybe they would show just how empty the chamber really is. So the camera becomes myoptic, seeing only the facade of floor action, debate. In short. House leaders have discovered a way to do something that few thought possible — rewrite live television, just as the House rewrites its daily written jour nal, the Congressional Record, which often is fiction compared with what actu ally happens on the floor. The networks, unfortunately, have played into the hands of House leaders who wanted to keep them out. For years they have done a poor, often non-existant job of covering the House. To the extent that network television has cov ered Congress, it has concentrated on the more glamorous Senate. Except for high-profile “people” stories such as the impeachment of Richard Ni xon, television has shown almost no inter est in House action. Until just the past year or two, it was rare ever to see a television reporter, much less a television camera, in the vicinity of a committee room where the real work of the House — the nitty-gritty of writing legislation —-Avas taking place. That situation does appear to be chang ing, and all three networks now have full time reporters in both the House and Se nate. But for the most part, television still is content to leave coverage of legislation to wire services. For that reason if for no other, no one could blame the House for wanting its own internally controlled television system. But that is not really the point. If it were, then there would be no reason not to allow two systems. There would be no reason not to let the House have its own internal system and to let the networks discreetly bring a minicamera into the gal lery whenever they like. The point is that the House is afraid to open its full processes to the eye of the public — all the public, not just the press and the occasional gallery visitors. In fairness, the system is new and is just feeling its way along. Changes may be made some year, possibly including occa sional commercial TV coverage. But in the meantime, your tax dollars are being spent to televise a facade. And the greatest beneficiaries are not the pub lic but congressmen themselves who will be sending swatches of videotape of their own speeches back to their local stations. Readers Forums Palestinians* rights By OUSSAMA H. QAWASMI In the analysis of the Camp David peace agreement, which supposedly provides a basis to resolve the Middle East problem, I find it necessary to throw more light on the nature of the conflict and the central issues involved. It is a well established fact that the central issue in the Middle East crisis is Palestinian national rights. After the radical transformation of Palestine in 1948, from an overwhelming majority of an indigenous Arab population to an Israeli State — expelling most of the majority and replacing it by Jewish immigrants from 70 different countries — national rights were mainly achieved through Israeli terrorism, sporadic invasions, and forcible piecemeal annexations of expropriated Arab territories. The Sinai, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and Israeli Security are all by-products of the central issue (Palestinian national rights). The waves of violence that have swept the area for the past three decades were the result of Israel’s refusal to comply with the U.N. resolutions concerning the right of the Palestinians to return to their national homeland. Besides denying the world community, Israel continued its genocide against the Palestinians for defy ing and fighting all attempts to liquidate their unity and national integrity. When all peaceful means failed, the Palestinians found it necessary to establish the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), to preserve their unity and carry on an armed struggle against Israel to restore their national rights. Today, the PLO is the official and legitimate representative of the Palestinians. It is reognized by the U.N. and has offices and diplomatic representation in all sympathetic nations. The vast majority of Arabs rejected the Camp David accords as a framework for peace in the Middle East because it failed even to mention the central issue. On the contrary, it gave Israel the basis for future expansion and security, while the Palestinian national rights issue was reduced to autonomy for the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza. Based on this framework, the Palestinians are con demned to permanent loss of their national identity, to permanent exile and statelessness — to a life without national hope. It is worthy to mention here that the Israelis on the “legitimate” settlements now constitute 13* of the West Bank population, also the Camp David accords legitimize the Israeli settlement on the West Bank and forbid Palestinians from returning. Thus, after a five-year period, there will be a substantial Israeli popula tion which makes autonomy nothing but a new form of colonization. On this basis, the Camp David framework contributes nothing to peace, since it is inevitable that a major war will be necessary to undo the Camp David deviation and restore the peace movement to the right track. Oussama H. Qatvasmi is a junior industrial engineering major at Texas A Assistant Managing Editor . Andy W Sports Editor David B# City Editor Scott Pendletc Campus Editor Steve I* 1 News Editors Debbie Parse® Beth Calhoun Staff Writers Karen Rogers, ^ Patterson, Sean Petty, W Blake, Dillard Stone, ^ Bragg, Lyle Lovett, Kerf • Taylor Cartoonist DougGrt^ Photo Editor Lee Roy Leschper) 1 Photographer Lynn Bla®* Focus section editor Gary Werf Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the editor or of the writer of the article and are not necessarily those of the . University administration or the Board of Regents. The Battalion is a non-profi t supporting enterprise operated bijmP as a university and community neicsp¥ Editorial policy is determined by thefiW