Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Sept. 17, 1984)
Page 2/The Battalion/Monday, September 17, 1984 Opinion Olympics leaves surplus not debts The Summer Olympics are only memories now. Mary Lou Retton’s 10 on the vault. Mary Decker’s fall in the 10,000 meter. In most recent Olympic Games another memory lin gered long after the athletic performances became statis tics. This memory — a huge Olympic debt — left a bad af tertaste in the mouths of the host countries. But the hosts of the 1984 Summer Olympics have no suqh taste in their mouths. The Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee an nounced a surplus of $150 million. The surplus was about 10 times more than originally projected by the organizing committee. Before the games opened the $15 million sur plus seemed more a pipe dream than a possible achieve ment. Soviet bloc countries criticized the LA games as being a commercial exploitation of Olympic ideals. But the Ca nadian government — which lost more than $1 billion at the 1976 Summer Games — surely would have benefltted from some of this crass commercialism. Crass commercialism served the Olympics well. The games were the first that were privately financed. The Olympics were staged — except for the security bud get — without the use of government aid. Amateur ath letes across the United States will benefit from this sur plus; the money being split between the U.S. Olympic Committee and the Amateur Athletic Foundation. Some money may even make its way to the Third World nations that participated in the games. With the $150 million surplus on the books, the mem bers of the Los Angeles Olympic Committee can hold their heads high and say to the world: “Capitalism works.” — The Battalion Editorial Board Let the '84 debates be truly debatable DAVID BRODER Washington Post Columnist WASHINGTON —Journalists have no business trying to stage-manage any aspect of the campaign we are covering. That’s obvious. But it is also well-under stood that rules are meant to be broken, and this is one I want to break. I plead indulgence to make the case to those now negotiating the terms and conditions of the 1984 presidential de bates that they be real debates — and not modified joint press conferences. Specifically, I urge that, rather than have journalists question the candidates, the candidates question each other. This is a case where the architectural doctrine of “less is more” surely applies. The voters are interested in seeing Ron ald Reagan face off against Walter F. Mondale and George Bush against Ger aldine A. Ferraro. Anything — or any body — that distracts from this natural focus of attention, who clutters up the stage, ought to be removed. There is a function for a moderator who introduces the candidates, explains the ground rules and enforces them by calling time on an overly lengthy an swer, for example. But beyond that, there is nothing to be done that cannot be done by the can didates themselves. All four of these in dividuals are experienced public ser vants, familiar with the issues and well aware of their differences with their op ponents. There is no basis at all for believing that they cannot put their own cases, and challenge their opponents’ conten tions, as well as anyone in the world. Tin terms of drama and viewer inter est, the experience of the Democratic primary debates argues powerfully for eliminating the interlocutors of the press. The best moments — the ones that crackled — in those debates came when the candidates questioned each other and responded directly to each other. In most' of those debates, there was but a single moderator on-stage, and in the critical exchanges, that person played no part. John Glenn and Mon dale talked directly to each other in New Hampshire; Mondale challenged Gary Hart almost nose-to-nose in Atlanta; Jesse Jackson lectured both his rivals on their behavior in New York, all without a word or a gesture from the modera tor. I can think of only two possible objec tions to carrying over this healthy habit into the autumn debates. Some might contend that it is beneath the dignity of these worthies to engage in this direct sort of verbal confrontation. I can imag ine some Republican strategist saying that “nice guy” Reagan should not be put in the position of asking Mondale to justify his public support of the Carter grain embargo while he privately thought it foolish. Even more easily, I can imagine some Republican saying that Bush should not be placed in the position of “attacking a lady,” by being forced to question Ferraro himself. On the other side, I can imagine some Democrat worrying that Mondale might appear disrespectful of the office of President if he questioned Reagan too vigorously, or that Ferraro might look strident and “un-ladylike” if she pressed Bush on his “voodoo economics” re mark. None of these protocol arguments carries weight. This in not a Washington dinner party we are discussing; it is a de bate. And, as the old saying goes, if you can’t take the heat, get out of the studio. Nor is there much merit in the argu ment that the candidates will not raise all the issues that journalists might ask. During the Democratic debates, we learned that the question asked — or omitted — tells you as much about the questioner and his motives as the answer given — or evaded — tells you about his rival. As a voter, I am intrigued to guess what issues Reagan would raise with Mondale, and vice-versa, knowing thfit only a few topics can be covered and that millions of voters are watching and making up their minds. That would tell us much more than we could possibly learn by watching them struggle with the question on Afghanistan from the New York Times or on comparable pay from the Sacramento Bee. And now that I have mentioned, hy pothetically, some of my colleagues, let me confess my final reason for hoping that the candidates will debate — really debate — this year. I think those stages and studios are bad places for us as jour nalists to be. There is no professional criticism intended of those reporters who have served on these panels. Their questions have been good, their attitude and demeanor thoroughly impartial. But there is no escaping that every time we do that job, we inject ourselves in the campaign — into the central event of the campaign — and become players, not observers. Whether the question impales a candidate or offers him escape from the tight corner of the previous exchange, we are affecting his tory, not just writing its first draft. To my fellow journalists, I would say: Let’s play on our own ground, and insist that all these candidates, including the President, have frequent news confer ences during the campaign. But let the debates be debates. Great News COMRAPES... WE’VE SEEN CHERNENKO TOPAy.,.He LOOKS (500PANP HE'S JUST RESDN6 LETTERS More comment on Goodrich death EDITOR: Up to this point I have refrained from commenting formally on the Bruce Goodrich incident because I know it is fraught with controversy and my input might only aggravate matters. However, I feel several misrepresenta tions of the facts by Mr. Swearingen (Sept. 10 Battalion editorial page) should be corrected. I know that Bruce Goodrich’s death has not been forgotten by any Aggie, much less the officials in charge of the Corps of Cadets. Several steps have al ready been taken to ensure that such a tragedy will never occur again. First, the commanding officer of each outfit is required to obtain a medical re cord of every cadet in the outfit. Thus, unforseen medical problems will be avoided. Secondly, all runs must be approved by the outfit advisor who is a commis sioned officer in the military. Thirdly, the guard room will obtain the humidity rating and temperature several times daily and flags will be posted on the uni form block indicating weather inappro priate for exercise. Also, the only disciplinary action al lowed among cadets will be punitive physical training with a limit of twenty- five push-ups. Another new measure is the appointment of a cadet to oversee physical training. His sole responsibility is to ensure that any special cases will build physical stamina slowly and safely on individualized programs. Finally, no cadet will be encouraged to' run beyond his capabilities. Whenever a cadet feels fatigued he may simply drop out of the run. I feel these new standards will more than secure the safety of our ca dets. I would also like to caution any critics of the Corps who make the mistake of confusing an honorable institution and time-honored traditions with a few members’ mistakes. Helen Miller Underwoood Hall This letter was accompanied by 53 other signatures. EDITOR’S NOTE: The question is not if new procedures will be adopted, rather if all the rules will be enforced. The ‘crap out’ that killed Cadet Bruce Goodrich was against the Corps’ own rules. Individuals more important than group EDITOR: I’tn sure that, since the death of Bruce Goodrich, hazing has all but stopped, but everyone knows that hazing will never completely end at A&M. It’s too much a part of the Corps tradition to stop forever; so, for when it returns, let me give you this advice: The whole purpose of hazing is to give you a sense of school spirit; that is, a sense of identity with the Corps. That school spirit, in itself, is fine; hazing is just plain silly. What happened in the case of Bruce Goodrich is that he al lowed school spirit to become more im portant than himself; that is, he let the Corps push him beyond his physical limits. When hazing returns to A&M, DON'T let school spirit become more important than your personal health. Know you limits; and, when you reach those limits, stop. No matter what any upperclassman tells you, the individual is always more important than any group or institution. Never let anyone convince you other wise and act accordingly. Stacy Powers Class of ’86 The Battalion USPS 045 360 Member of Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Conference In memoriam Bill Robinson, 1962-1984, Editor The Battalion Editorial Board Stephanie Ross, Acting Editor Patrice Koranek, Managing Editor Shelley Hoekstra, City Editor Brigid Brockman, News Editor Donn Friedman, Editorial Page Editor Kelley Smith, News Editor Ed Cassavoy, Sports Editor The Battalion Staff Assistant City Editors Melissa Adair, Michelle Powe Assistant News Editors Bonnie Langford, Kellie Dworaczyk, Lauri Reese Assistant Sports Editor ....... Travis Tingle Entertainment Editor Bill Hughes Assistant Entertainment Editor Angel Stokes Senior Reporters Robin Black Staff Writers Tammy Bell, Shawn Behlen, Cami Brown, Dena Brown, Dainah Bullard, Leigh-EUen Clark, Tony Cornett, Suzy Fisk, Patricia Flint Kari Fluegel, Kathy Wiesepape, Bob McGlohon, Karla Martin Sarah Oates Jan Perry, Lynn Rae Povec, James R. Walker Make-up Editor J°h n Hallett Copy Writer Karen Bloch, Copy Editors Kathy Breard, Kaye Pahnieier Photographers Frank Irwin, Peter Rocha, John Ryan, Dean Saito 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 arc those of the Edi- { torial Board or the author, and do not necessarily represent 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 hut will make every effort to maintain the au thor’s intent. Each letter must be signed and must include the address and telephone number of the writer. Thd Battalion is published Monday through Friday dur ing Texas A&M regular semesters, except for holiday and examination periods. Mail subscriptions are Si6.75 per se mester, $33.25 per school year and $35 per full year. Adver tising rates furnished on request. Our address: The Battalion, 2lb Reed McDonald Build ing, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843. Ed itorial staff phone number: (409) 845-2630. Advertising: (409)845-2611. Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843.