Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Aug. 9, 1984)
Opinion Page 2AThe Battalion/Thursday, August 9, 1984 Watergate's scars a needed warning To many Americans, the wounds inflicted upon the presidency and the nation by the Watergate affair will never heal. But for most, all that re mains are scars marking the end of a dark part of American history. A decade has passed since Richard Nixon announced his resignation from the presidency on Aug. 9, 1974, leaving a profound and painful taint on the nation’s history. Nixon’s resignation ended the tur bulent battle that shook the nation and threatened to rip the presidency apart at the seams. Shortly after being sworn in as president, Gerald Ford went on television to reassure the American public — to tell us that “the long na tional nightmare” of Watergate was over. But fortunately, this is one night mare that won’t be forgotten upon awakening, for it teaches an important lesson about the dangers posed when the public deifies a public official. Before Watergate, the American president represented all that was right with the nation. Nixon knew that and it proved to be his downfall. Nixon believed, as did most Ameri cans, that the president had to possess super-human qualities — infallibility among them. So when faced with the prospect of telling the public of a hor rible — and criminal — mistake, Nixon chose to cover it up. What the public doesn’t know won’t nurt it. But two wrongs don’t make a right. The American public would proba bly have forgiven Nixon for Watergate had he just told all and apologized for it. His lack of faith in the public helped destroy him, and he took the presi dency down with him. Except for Watergate, Nixon made great strides as president, especially in the cause of world peace. But because of his actions — and the criminal ac tions of those around him — his many achievements are relegated to infamy. That’s the price a president pays when he can’t face his own mistakes — and when the public puts a politician on a pedestal. Fortunately, many seem to have learned from this past mistake. But tragically, within a few years those hard-learned lessons of Watergate probably will be forgotten. — The Battalion Editorial Board By Authors search for truth in the White House It’s re a Nig] the si lelplessl As your Well, what is it? Is James Deakin’s stuff really straight, or is Jody Powell’s story from the other side of the truth? The media ver sus the White House. It’s a relationship that concocts strong feelings. Two re cently published media, specifically the media-govern ment relationship. In addition, both books come to some similar conclusions. For example, there is no liberal con spiracy to control public opinion. In fact, they conclude, reporters’ politics have little to do with their coverage of an event. The fact is that news has to sell, or those who report it and edit it will find themselves searching for a new job. And that creates a bias to make news Robert McGlohon books examine that relationship, each from a different perspective. From the media comes “Straight Stuff’ by former Washington corre spondent James Deakin, a veteran of 25 years of White House coverage for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. In counterpoint, former presi dential press secretary Jody Powell makes his publishing debut by telling “The Other Side of the Story,” a chronicle of his four years at Jimmy Carter’s White House. The two books complement each other nicely. They differ in scope — with one covering almost 30 years of presidential folly and the other limited to four years of media excess — but they overlap in their analyses of the James Deakin does a particularly fine job of dispelling the Liberal Me dia Establishment myth by detailing the press exposes of every president — liberal and conservative alike — since the Eisenhower administration. Unfortunately, however, that’s about all there is to “Straight Stuff’ — a rehash of political deceptions. Dea kin touches upon the media faults — superficiality, incompleteness, even bias — but he never gives them an in- depth examination and frequently brushes them off as an unfortunate but necessary handmaiden to a free press in a competitive society. Powell deals little with those issues as well, but he examins two more-vital issues that Deakin ignores: sensationa lism and accountability. ' As Powell puts it, “The major bias in journalism, it seems to me, the one most likely to promote deception and dishonesty, has its roots in economics. reports interesting.” And compounding that economic bias, he says, is the simple fact that journalists — unlike public officials — are not held accountable for their work. Powell points to an almost universal refusal by journalists to report their compatriots’ misdeeds. He writes, “The process is roughly equivalent to saying, ‘Well, I think the President and his chief of staff are de cent fellows on the whole; let’s forget about this investigative reporting busi ness and trust them to make sure that the executive branch does its duty.’ “We leave the question of right and wrong in the press, unlike other pow erful institutions in our society, to the individual reporters and editors.” So it’s sensationalism aggravated by a lack of accountability that mars the Washington press corps. Both Powell and Deakin treat one of the most sensationally unfounded epi sodes to come out of Washington in recent years: the continuing saga of Carter’s chief of staff, Hamilton Jor dan. One of the chapters in that saga is the Amaretto and Cream Episode: Jordan is accused by Washington Post gossip columnist Rudy Maxa of spit ting a mouthful of Amaretto and Cream upon a young woman in a Washington bar. Powell, because of an earlier incident of a similar nature, overreacts in coming to his friend’s de fense. It’s interesting to note how little things change. As he did then, Powell shows in “The Other Side of the Story” that Jordan was railroaded by the Wash ington press corps. And as he did then, Deakin, in “S- traight Stuff,” ignores the evidence in the case, but concentrates on Powell’s page document to defend Jordan twenty-two- or twenty-four-page, pending on which reporter was the counting) was the theme ofthe ries. My overreaction became the rather than the accuracy oftheaco tions. “It was a painful and bitter for me.” Deakin, on the other hand,cals! i'rur'nr happy time. Here’s his story: “The White Hoe then put out a twenty-four p| statement by the bartender. Hesaid had not seen Jordan do anything: polite ... ore an As sh< ith real As sh< wn where and di As she And you ible pre and tl reaction. Here’s Powell’s story: “On Monday morning I released the statements contradicting Maxa’s charges. The re porters made their own judgements all right, but not about Rudy Maxa or the accuracy of his allegations. “Their reaction was predictable, but unfortunately I had failed to predict it. The stories that night and the next day concentrated not on the holes in Maxa’s story ... but on the number of pages in the statement we handed out. “‘White House issues thirty-three- “Then the White House pul nine additional pages of statemenii various other persons. They di that Jordan had misbehaved, made thirty-three pages of statero totaling 7,000 words. This was than twice as long as Carter’s the Union message.” All you c love h let hei and tl to get we jfSHI —Jur The v ing from Vhetl lulimia. Things change and change and the same. T he blurb on the Powell booksi “... the news seemed to me, then now, to be wrong, unsupportable.tJ unfair.” He just might be right. Discovering hidden costs in daughter’s collect cal By ART BUCHWALD Columnist for The Los Angeles Times Syndicate (With the resignations of Anne Gor- such Burford and Bert Lance, Mr. Buchwald has gone on a monastic re treat to rethink the entire November election. He left behind some of his readers’ all time favorite columns.) “Hello, I have a collect call from Miss Joyce Robinson in Oshkosh, Wis. Will you accept the charges?” “Yes, operator, we will.” “Hi Pops. How are you?” “Fine. What are you doing in Osh kosh? I thought you were driving to Cape Cod to visit Aunt Rose.” “We were, but Cynthia wanted to stop off and visit a boy she knew from school who lives in Minneapolis.” “Who is Cynthia?” “She’s a girl I met in New Orleans.” “New Orleans? I didn’t know you went to New Orleans.” “I wasn’t planning to, but Tommy said there was a great concert of the Grateful Dead scheduled to play in the stadium. He got the day right, but the wrong month.” “Tommy?” “He was hitchhiking on 95.” “You started out with Ellen Mul berry. Where is she?” “She met some kids she knew in Fort Lauderdale, and they were driv ing to Mexico, so she decided to go with them.” “So you’re now traveling with Cyn thia and Tommy.” “No. Tommy stayed in New Or leans, and Cynthia left yesterday. She said she couldn’t wait until my car was fixed.” “What’s wrong with your car?” “The motor fell out. That’s what I’m calling you about. The garageman said it will cost $550 to fix it up.” “That’s a fortune!” “You don’t have to pay it if you don’t want to. I can leave the car here. I met a guy who has a motorcycle, and he says he’ll take me as far as Detroit.” “I LL PAY IT!” “How’s Mom?” “She’s on the extension. I think she was fine until we got your call. Where are you staying until you get your car fixed?” “I met some nice kids who have a re ligious commune near here, and they said I could stay with them if I promise to devote the rest of my life to God.” “That’s nice.” “The only problem is I have to shave my head.” “Can’t you stay at a motel?” “I don’t have any money left.” “What happened to the $300 I gave you?” “Two hundred went for expenses and 100 of it went for the fine.” “What fine?” “We were fined $100 for speeding in this little-bitty town in Arkansas “I told you not to drive fast.” I “I wasn’t driving. Fred was.” | “Who the hell is Fred?” “He’s a vegetarian, and hesaysC talism is finished in the West.” i “That’s worth $ 100 to hear. Arec going to Cape Cod to visit AuntRf or aren’t you?” “As soon as I get the car fixed, Pt Send me the money care of Wesii Union. You don’t want the manlo: the dented door at the same time? “Your car had no dented door. “It does now. I have to go, D Some kids I met are going to take white-water canoeing. Goodbye. ) Pops — have a nice day.” The Battalion USPS 045 360 Member of Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Conference The Battalion Editorial Board Rebeca Zimmermann, Editor Bill Robinson, Editorial Page Editor Shelley Hoekstra, City Editor Brigid Brockman, News Editor Kathleen Hart, News Editor Travis Tingle, Sports Editor The Battalion Staff Assistant City Editor Robin Black Assistant News Editors Dena Brown, Bonnie Langford Staff Writers Ed Alanis, Kari Fluegel.Bob McGlohon, Sarah Oates Copy Writers Karen Bloch, Cyndy Davis Copy Editor Tracie Holub Photographers Peter Rocha, Eric Evan Lee Editorial Policy The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper operated as a community service to Texas A&M and Bryan- College Station. Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the Editorial Board or the author, and do not necessarily rep resent the opinions of Texas A&M administrators, faculty or the Board of Regents. The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper for students in reporting, editing and photography classes within the Department of Communications. United Press International is entitled exclusively to the use for reproduction of all news dispatches credited to it. Rights of reproduction of all other matter herein reserved. Letters Policy Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 words in length. The editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters for style and length but will make every effort to maintain the author’s intent. Each letter must be signed and must in clude the address and telephone number of the writer. The Battalion is published Monday through Friday dur ing Texas A&M regular semesters, except for holiday and examination periods. Mail subscriptions are f 16.75 per se mester, f33.25 per school year and $35 per full year. Adver tising rates furnished on reouest. Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald Build ing, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843. Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843. Letter: GSS fights oppression Editor: I couldn’t believe it. I have enjoyed reading Steve Thomas’s column since he began writing for The Battalion. If he was a little corney with with his one- word paragraphs, at least he was al ways intelligent. But notice my use of the past tense. His commentary about Gay Student Services on August 7 left me incredulous. “Gay rights have nothing to do with it”??? That’s where you are deeply, dangerously and terribly wrong, Mr. Thomas. Gay rights have everything to do with it, and GSS is not based “on a method of having sex.” GSS (along with gay rights in general) is based on fighting oppression. “Who one wishes to have sex with” is indeed “a private affair.” It is indeed ridiculous to have organizations based on private affairs. It is almost as ridiculous as opressing people for those private affairs. It is non-gay people who link op pression with “private affairs,” there fore making them a public issue! I have said on many occasions that the “gay problem” is really the “non-gay problem.” Gays get accused quite often of being pre-occupied with sex, but the preoccupation, I assure you, is far more real in the minds of non-gays. We are not so obsessed with sex as are non-gays obsessed with their ideas of our sex. And as long as heterosexuals make it their business to ridicule, casti gate, or oppress on the grounds of a “private affair,” then we will fight for our rights. As long as any two people are made to feel shame or inferiority about the God-given love they share and nurture, then we will fight for our rights. As long as men and women are encouraged to turn to self-deception, self-hatred and suicide rather than to celebrate with pride their gift of sex uality, we will fight for our rights long as two women or two men c walk down the street holding hands kiss good-bye in a bus station wii fear for their lives, we will fight our rights. As long as the repn conservatives and theologically preachers of fundamentalism spi their lies about us, we will fight fa rights. Our “sexuality reflects on societal interaction” only as mu non-gays single us out of this pin tic society because of “a private ter,” and as long as that occurs, we fight and fight and fight. We stop when people learn that prejm and oppression are stupid and tfa simply do not accept heteroseflj judgement on our lives. Rev. Jon Ml Metropolitan Community Cht: in the Brazos Va? E At