MB
a a ft ' T1 ft n ft
iceslcs asmste imms toimsu;
Am A " cwCx III
Who has the rteht to tell other oeo- us."
pie what they can or cannot do?
Certainly not the federal government.
At least that's what some people are
saying to protest the federal minimum
drinking age bill passed Tuesday in the
Senate. The bill would require states to
set the age for purchasing alcohol at
21 years.
The bill, which President Reagan has
indicated he will sign into law, gives
the federal government a way to enforce
this legal age: If states do not comply
by 1987, they will lose 5 percent of
their federal highway funds. In 1988,
they will lose 10 percent of those
funds.
Opponents cry states' rights. Sen.
Gordon Humphrey, R-N.H., said the bill
tafces "a lot of gall and brass" because it
usurps state powers, according to The
Associated Press.
An editorial in the Lincoln Star
agreed with Humphrey's view, and con
tinued, "everyone has his own good
ideas about what is best for the rest of
That attitude is where the gall and
brass lies, not in the government's
attempt to save lives.
The federal drinking age b an attempt
to solve the problem of "blood borders."
Nebraska has a blood border with
Iowa: one state has a higher drinking
age than the other, and young people
cross the border to drink. Then they
have to get back home again. Drunk.
More than 100 Nebraskans were
killed in 1983 in alcohol-related acci
dents. At least half of . all accidents
nationwide are alcohol-related. About
5,000 Americans died in alcohol-related
accidents, in 1980 and about 130,000
teens were injured because of drunken
arivers.
A federal drinking age may not pre
vent all alcohol-related deaths. But it
is a step in the right direction.
To those who cry states' rights: Who
has the right to kill an innocent person
just because someone else felt like get
tin sloshed and driving?
T
elevision spots raise c
paign expenses'
Television dominates American life. It sells, nags,
entertains, and occasionally even informs. It has
also come to dominate the system we use to select a
president.
Candidates no longer feel the need to speak to a
crowd about their views. They speak to the cameras
instead, knowing that the cameras afford them a
IWMMIWMOL'aEBBEMBSig
Jeff Goodwin
much wider audience than they would ever hope to
draw in person.
Events are created for the media: Gary Hart goes
canoeing down a river in Oregon for the cameras.
He's not going to find very many voters on the river,
but he knows that Joe Blow watching the Six 'o
Clock News is going-to see that and think, "Hey,
that's something you don't see Mondale doing. He's
too old for that. This Hart really is a vigorous guy."
So Hart gets Joe's vote not because of his views but
because of the way he handles a canoe. That doesn't
seem like a particularly good way to choose a
president, but there you have it. As H.L. Mencken
once said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating
the intelligence of the American people." And he
said that before television came along.
Television has become a power responsible to no
one. The television anchormen went on the air and
told us Ronald Reagan already has beaten Jimmy
Carter. The polls were still open in many western
states. Sure, it's the job even duty of newsmen
to bring us the news, but this wasn't a fast-breaking
story. Everyone knew a president was going to be
elected that day. A few more hours really wouldn't
have mattered. Especially for the Democrats.
Perhaps the worst effect television has had on the
electoral process is in financing a campaign. The
cost of running a campaign has increased drama
tically in the last 20 years, thanks largely to more
television emphasis.
Television's influence is felt in state races as well
as presidential campaigns. This fall's Senate race
between Democrat James J. Exon and Republican
Nancy Hoch may cost nearly $1 million. That would
make it the most expensive race in the history of
Nebraska. In contrast, the average candidate for a
seat in the British Parliment spends about $8,000.
One reason the British spend so much less is
because their election campaigns are much shorter,
usually only a few weeks. But candidates don't have
to pay for television time on the British Broadcasting
Company. There's no reason why the same thing
cant be done here.
It's not as if the networks havent ever been
responsive to the public. Television was instrumental
Page 4
in bringing about the downfall of Joe McCarthy by
exposing him during the U.S. Army-McCarthy hear
ings. Later the networks helped bring the truth
home to the American public by bringing the Water-"
gate hearings into our living rooms.
It would be nice if television took the first step and
volunteered to give free air time to the candidates.
Such an event is unlikely, however, given the net
works' greed for profits. Perhaps they could be
convinced if they were shown thUt such a change
could improve their public image.
But, if free air time has to come through legislation,
it should be done. There's no way such legislation
could be construed as an attack on First Amend
ment rights. It would merely be an attempt to apply
common sense to a serious problem.
It won't solve the problem completely, but it is a
beginning.
V- V-1
fx
r ii
Jf ' f.
ill 7 I I F AW A I
lb ii jw - v i fit in
s5 rN-H
f 1:,ti 'I
in
('
VM: if
SUPPOSE WRE 60IN5 W TEL M,
FFuRIMq SOME WOMAN
tVO
mi
y WERE OUT
m
Letter Policy
The Daily Nebraska, ivelcorp.es brief letters to the
editor from all readers and interested others.
Letters will be selected for publication on the
basis of clarity, originality, timeliness and space
available. The Daily Nebraskan retains therigJU to
edit all material submitted.
Dally Nebraskan
Anonymous submissions will not bs considered
for publication. Letters should include the author 's
- name, year in school, major and group affiliation,
y. anV Requests to withhold names from publica
tion will not be granted.
Submit material to tlte Daily Nebraskan, 34 Neb
raska Union, 1400 R St, Lincoln, Neb. C35S3 0448.
Friday. June 29. 1984