j
)n
Train, >,
'otograpl
ght, was :
a shei.
hinSOyi-;
a Yugo-
f units Di;
n borde:
I two Sit
' officials
home k
vas seek
next fisc
o reach •
sday to*
m in fee
?nt offidi
Agricult,
i said pi;
r good,;
the Unit
auntrysi;
at it, H
a Garza I
dent ak.
n the fee
<
a
anybodi
>ur ad,
cakes th;
!. Befon
poster:
\cm
th "Sen
?ove.
xinny t;
dng or
ive siffl'
Hole
buildint
om th;
o Coir
women
rns ant
■' roll.
aar, one
aurant
Russia;
zome if
inter
c drai!
■s.
at th
nale id
lings.”
. tertair
»id Bill;
Rhodf
lie Del
-Indian
i is onf
aurant
.s
rizeda
■e M
-omn"“
com
S. trail
■rkpila
^ear a i
-espon
^queO’
becar
-ed ^
rriti^'
' s oft
| daif
receh-
■ssaft
lVise c '
Don't censor,
just change dial
IT
V—/ pon reading a front page
story in The Battalion today regard
ing TCA's proposed cancellation of
the MTV network, I became very
concerned. I am not concerned
because MTV is the target. I am not
personally an MTV viewer. I find
the network to have little entertain
ment value, music or otherwise, and
I am personally offended by some of
the material shown due to its often
sexually exploitative, violent and
degenerate nature. Nevertheless,
MTV should not be removed from
TCA cable.
I stress the word personally in
the preceding paragraph to indicate
"By removing MTV, a vocal
portion of the B/CS popu
lace ... will be indirectly
imposing its value system
upon another portion of the
local cable subscribers."
my feelings as dictated by my value
system and morals. I do not wish
someone else to impose his values
upon others. By removing MTV, a
vocal portion of the B/CS populace
it matters not whether it is a majori
ty or minority) will be indirectly
imposing its value system upon
another portion of the local cable
subscribers. Conversely, some may
argue that by carrying the network
the viewers of MTV are imposing
their values upon those who wish it
to be canceled. This is not a valid
argument, though its lack of validity
may be subtle to some. Currently,
cable subscribers have the freedom
not to watch MTV simly by not
turning to the appropriate channel .
If the network is canceled then the
freedom to watch MTV is denied to
all.
The above argument may seem
overly philosophical for such a
seemingly petty topic. The primary
reason some wish to cancel tne MTV
network is due to their children hav
ing access to the channel. Six to
seven years ago, in my home town,
such a situation occurred. A justifi
ably concerned group of parents
wanted to ban MTV from the local
cable service. Unfortunately, due to
their social prominence, this group
succeeded in having MTV removed
from the local cable service. The just
solution in both that case and the
current dilemma is to have MTV
Mark Kirk
Reader's Opinion
removed from a household upon
request, not by default. While it may
be easier to eliminate the network
from TCA's feed entirely, or profit
by charging those who wish to keep
MTV, neither can be deemed as ethi
cal. However, it would be ethical
(though not necessarily "nice") to bill
those who choose not to view MTV
for an RF filter if they feel it neces
sary. It is indeed ethical since on he
may choose not to view MTV
although its feed reaches the home
by, again, simply not turning to
MTV's channel.
Furthermore, parents should
hopefully be able to direct their chil
dren not to watch MTV. Parents
who ask society to censor itself for
their children's sake are naive.
Strong parents can instill values in
their children in such a way that
censorship is unnecessary in the
long term. Censorhsip in a child's
formative years can be accom
plished by the parents. A steadfast
value system is only achieved when
weathered by the chaos that is the
morality of society. I prefer the free
dom to raise my children according
to my doctrines and not those of
society. Children who are prohibited
from watching MTV because of cen
sorship only, not by the guidance of
a good parent, will inevitably suffer.
They will suffer because their values
will be dictated by society and not
by their parents.
Another issue that is brought into
the limelight is that of cable monop
olies. In every city of which I am
aware, there is a single cable compa
ny. This makes for a monpoly in
every town. I am not versea in the
legality of this situation, but it seems
to the layman that competition
might improve cable sevice. If cities
would allow other cable companies
to operate in a locale, then possibly
our current problem would be as
simple as changing cable services to
one that opted not to censor.
Competition might also have the
side effect of lowering subscription
rates. Presently, the responsible civil
action for many will be to cancel
TCA cable.
Mark Kirk is a senior electrical
engineering major.
7
Mail Call
The Battalion is interested in hearing from its readers and welcomes all letters to the editor.
Please include name, classification, address and phone number on all letters. The editor reserves
the right to edit letters for style and length. Because of limited space, shorter letters have a better
chance of appearing. There is, however, no guarantee letters will appear. Letters may be brought
to 216 Reed McDonald or sent to Campus Mail Stop 1111.
Healthy diet can include meat
EDITOR:
As nutritionists, we are concerned that people receive
sound nutritional information. The quality of their lives
can depend on it. We worry more about people like
Michael Worsham (The Battalion, June 25, 1991) who,
without any real knowledge of human nutrition, propose
significant dietary changes for the rest of us.
There is no excuse for allowing any contamination in
our food supply. We would agree that inspection systems
must be first rate, and the Congress and the people ought
to look into possible failures. Tofu, too, may be contami
nated in processing, and otherwise made less wholesome.
That has nothing to do with nutritional importance of
either tofu or animal products.
Admittedly, being fat holds a risk for coronary heart
disease and we would like to see people eat much less fat
— animal or plant. Strokes result mamly from excess salt
in the diet. Osteoporosis is diminished, not caused by,
milk products consumed mainly while young, but also
through life. Diabetes is hereditary and requires dietary
management, but occurs in vegetarians as well as non
vegetarians. Obesity is found among many who eat
plant-centered diets. Animal products are the main
source of vitamin B12, iron and zinc for people in North
America. Interestingly, those populations that consume
animal products live longer than those who do not.
As for the John Robbins book, it reads well, but is so full
or error and myth that it merits little real consideration.
Robert Hagevoort
Jon Moritz
nutrition graduate students
Students should support MTV
EPlTOR;^^ ■ ****-v*..-
In response to the issue over TCA Cable's cancellation
of MTV, I call all Aggies to stand up, pay attention and
take action. We're paying for a service, and we expect that
service to include tne availability of MTV.
Aggies, we don't have to sit back and let them take
away our option to watch what we want! If you and
every other Aggie reading this letter now call TCA and
cancel your subscription, TCA will have to listen to our
demands. TCA will have to find a way to provide MTV
(not VH1 or any other measly substitute!!) TCA will listen
if we Aggies, all 10,000 or so of us, work together on this.
As soon as you get home today, call TCA Cable and
cancel your subscription immediately. If we do this
together, it will work.
Dana Frazer '93
Cynthia Fridley '93
Phyllis McAdoo '93
Two Views on The Supreme Court
Recent decisions reveal court's ultraconservative agenda
O ne of the last diehard liber
als of the Supreme Court, Thurgood
Marshall, has resigned, which makes
me wonder how much worse off this
country will be as we make our way to
the end of the millenium.
With Marshall gone, the Court
now will have a 6-3 conservative
majority with those last three votes
questionable in some decisions.
And with the way the Court has
been making decisions this term, I
thought things were bad enough. This
will just make things worse in coming
judicial terms.
In the judicial session that ended
today, the Supreme Court has shown
that it is so truly ultra conservative that
it doesn't even think twice about
imposing limits on the freedoms of
United States citizens.
To recap some of the more obvi
ously conservative decisions the
Supreme Court has made:
Police have the right to search pas
sengers on a bus without warrant or
even suspicion of a crime.
Prison inmates do not have an
automatic right to counsel if they are
being questioned about crimes of
whicn they are not accused.
Federally funded family planning
clinics cannot advise pregnant women
about abortion options, even if the
women initiate the questioning.
State prison inmates have limited
rights when appealing to federal
courts.
These are a few of the more clear-
Timm Doolen
Editor
cut cases in which the Supreme Court
has limited our rights as citizens. If
this trend continues, freedom in
America will become more and more
restricted.
Recently on "This Week with David
Brinkley," former federal appeals
court judge Robert Bork said he
believed Roe v. Wade would be over
turned within the next year. Is this still
America we live in?
In all fairness the Court has made a
few decisions that could be considered
liberal or protecting the rights of citi
zens, such as extending the Voting
Rights Act to include judicial races.
But those few decisions do not excuse
the many restrictions the Supreme
Court is imposing on us.
With it looking likely that Bush will
be elected for another four years, by
the end of Bush's reign we could have
an entire court nominated by Reagan
or Bush — two of the most conserva
tive presidents in this century.
With more conservative nominees
on the horizon, America is looking like
a scaiy place to live. Conservative
judges nave normally exercised judi
cial restraint, but the Rehnquist court
seems to be involved in judicial
activism.
Judicial restraint is a strict, unbi
ased approach to interpreting the law
rather tnan using the law to effect
social change, and obviously the
Rehnquist court has been violating
this doctrine.
Having a narrow interpretation of
the Constitution and federal law is one
thing, but promoting a conservative
agenda is quite another. I would not
mind so much except the decisions
seem to be made along strict ideologi
cal lines, without regards to how it
affects the citizens of this country.
So with our Constitutional freedoms
being slowly taken away. I've decided
once I graduate I will move to
Holland, or Switzerland, or any place
that has more freedom than the United
States — maybe somewhere in Eastern
Europe.
Timm Doolen is a senior computer
science major.
Source confidentiality ruling leaves unanswered questions
O
n Monday the Supreme
Court ruled that a reporter's promise
of anonymity to a news source is legal
ly binding, and that the reporter and
news organization may be sued for
breaking such a promise.
The Court's ruling asserts that an
agreement of confidentiality is a legal
contract between the reporter and the
unidentified person.
Indeed, it is easily argued that the
basic aspects of a legal contract are
present. There are two parties promis
ing to give something for something
else - reporter gets information, news
source gets identity protection. So,
when a reporter breaks this promise, a
legal contract has been broken as well.
This ruling may clarify that
promising anonymity is a contract, but
many other issues now are raised.
What if a judge were to order a
reporter to reveafthe identity of a con
fidential source? In the past, if the
reporter refused to comply with the
court, he or she would face penalties
for contempt. If the reporter revealed
the source, that reporter breached
journalistic ethics.
With Monday's ruling, the
reporter faces a damned-if-you-do,
damned-if-you-don't situation with
the law. If tne reporter protects the
source, that reporter receives fines or
jail for contempt. If the reporter
reveals the source, he or she faces a
lawsuit.
Don Tomlinson, associate profes
sor of journalism at A&M who teaches
media law, says this is the key contra-
Todd Stone
Managing Editor
diction of this ruling. But there are
others as well.
First, news organizations and their
reporters may be less willing to enter
into a confidentiality agreeement. Why
take such a risk when any misunder
standing or obvious breach of promise
could lead to a lawsuit?
Since unidentified news sources
may be used less now, information to
the public could be significantly less
ened. This restriction of information
limits expression which the First
Amendment was written to protect.
Second, what if knowing the source
is important to the public? The pub- •
lie's right-to-know is hindered by this
ruling. For example, imagine
University President William Mobley
informed The Battalion or The New
York Times that the Texas A&M Board
of Regents was composed of commu
nists. But Mobley would only provide
the evidence if his identity was pro
tected.
Certainly, the A&M public would
want to know the source as much as
the news. Often, the news source is as
important as the news itself.
Although there are several reasons
to criticize this ruling, some argue that
unforseen benefits are possible.
Again, since reporters may use con
fidential sources less, reporters may
work harder for more reliable and
revealing news sources; thus, more
credible information may be available.
Further, sources that in the past
would never offer information, even
as an anonymous source, may recon
sider, knowing that he or she has legal
rights if the confidentiality promise is
broken.
Discussing the possible pros and
cons of this ruling is a shot-in-the-dark
at best. If the Supreme Court's goal is
to clarify legal issues, then, it has
failed with this ruling.
Confidentiality is already a difficult
legal and ethical dilemma. The
Supreme Court has only clouded an
already complex issue with more
questions than answers.
Todd Stone is a graduate student in
business.