EDITOR
Doug Kouma
OPINION
EDITOR
Anthony Nguyen
EDITORIAL
BOARD
Paula Lavigne
Joshua Gillin
Jessica Kennedy
Jeff Randall
Erin Gibson
Guest
VIEW
Free time
FCC proposal may
affect political campaigns
From The San Diego Union-Tribune
One of the more fascinating suggestions
for solving die campaign-finance conundrum
comes from the Federal Communications
Commission.
Soon, the FCC, which oversees the
nation’s airwaves, will grant broadcasters
access to second TV stations, free of chaige.
The transaction is part of a plan to accelerate
the installation of high-definition TV, the next
generation of crisp TV images. In return for
this electronic largess, some FCC officials are
recommending that broadcasters provide free
air time for politicians pursuing federal of
fice.
Seems like an eminently fair exchange.
The airwaves, after all, are public prop
erty. That’s why their use by broadcasters is
contingent upon the grant of licenses by the
federal government. To obtain such a license,
the networks must demonstrate their commit
ment to the public good.
Stations do so in part by airing public
service announcements that generate no rev
enues whatsoever. This would appear a small
price to pay for having access to millions of
viewers, in return for which sponsors pay
large sums of money to transmit their com
mercial messages.
Political ads are public-service messages.
They communicate a candidate’s views on
issues, thereby providing voters with the facts
they need to make informed judgments. That
these ads often get down and dirty, instead of
illuminating the issues is depressing. But
that’s no reason to assume things cannot im
prove with some fine-tuning.
“ That could be done with free air time.
Broadcasters stand to make more than
$70 billion from the additional TV channels.
In exchange for this bonanza, one would think
the networks could provide free TV time to
candidates.
This reform makes sense on several lev
els. Pols with ready access to the airwaves
would not spend so much time begging for
campaign contributions, which in turn would
enable them to concentrate on the issues in
stead of raffling off access to the highest bid
der.
The obscene cost of waging political cam
paigns is correlated to the ever-increasing
expense of buying TV time. Two decades ago,
pols were shelling out $25 million on TV ads;
today it costs at least that much just to fi
nance a senate campaign in California. In
1996, candidates nationwide spent $400 mil
lion, with the presidential contenders allocat
ing two-thirds of their budget to TV, while
senatorial hopefuls were putting 42 percent
of their chips into TV spots.
President Clinton supports the free air
time concept along with Sen. John McCain,
R-Ariz., who is trying without much success
to persuade Congress to clean up the way
campaigns are fmanced. There is precious
little enthusiasm on Capitol Hill for chang
ing an incumbent-friendly system. But the
FCC could do so through its rule-making au
thority. This is an intriguing idea worth seri
ous consideration.
Editorial Policy
Unsigned editorials are the opinions of the
Spring 1997 Daily Nebraskan. They do not
necessarily reflect the views of the Univer
sity of Nebraska-Lincoln, its employees, its
student body or the University of Nebraska
Board of Regents. A column is solely the
opinion ofits author The Board of Regents
serves as publisher of the Daily Nebraskan;
policy is set by the Daily Nebraskan Edito
rial Board The UNL Publications Board
established by the regents, supervises the
production of the paper. According to policy
set by the regents, responsibility for the edi
torial content of the newspaper lies solely
in the hands of its student employees.
Letter Policy
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief let
ters to the editor and guest columns, but
does not guarantee their publication. The
Daily Nebraskan retains the right to edit
or reject any material submitted. Sub
mitted material becomes the property of
the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be re
turned. Anonymous submissions will not
be published. Those who submit letters
must identify themselves by name, year
in school, major and/or group affilia
tion, if any. Submit material to: Daily
Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R
St Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448. E-mail:
letters@unlinfo.unl.edu.
Mehs ling’s
VIEW
wsot wm cke&w
miw m i«i .
CON
s
• • ■ ■ ,
DN
LETTERS
AnX-Chip?!
This is in reference to the
column entitled “Shake your booty”
(DN, Wednesday). I appreciate J.J.
Harder’s opinion, but in my opinion
his column just outright sucks.
First of all how many
kindergarteners do you see running
around naked? We are all the
products of these cartoons that in
your opinion have “naked” charac
ters. The majority of us have
watched the “Smurfs” or “Yogi
Bear,” but how many of us (the
student population) do you see
running around the campus naked?
Or even better, how many
children do you see or hear of
running naked around their class
rooms? If this was such a problem
then it would have been addressed
already. Maybe we would already
have a chip for TVs — the X-ctiip
for those X-rated cartoons.
On second thought maybe we
should boycott the Discovery
channel for all of those nature
shows? I mean, all those animals
running around naked in the wild?
Could you imagine the consequence
of thousands of 7-year-olds running
around in the forest nude? Kids
know from a very young age the
difference between reality and make
believe. A cartoon is not real and
only used for humor and entertain
ment.
No. 2 Bestiality? Who are you
trying to fool here? I would love to
know just how many 5-year-olds you
have personally seen trying to “get it
on” with the family pet. I am ,
wondering: Do you know something
that we (as the population) don’t
know? If so I’d love to hear it.
No. 3 The reason that violence is
such a problem in cartoons is there
is so much of it. Children learn from
what they see and hear.
Josh Gilun/DN
I can’t recall the last time I saw
Yogi Bear trying to seduce Boo Boo.
We have enough violence in our
society as is and for children to learn
it at a young age is just wrong.
Maybe having our kids learn to love
other things instead of violence
would be a step in a better direction
(though I don’t think the family pet
would appreciate it).
Not once in my life have I found
Yogi’s outfit seductive, noticed that
Itchy and Scratchy lacked an outfit
or thought that Wile E. Coyote was
giving me a Ml frontal view. But
that’s me. (Now that I think about it,
are any of the cartoon characters
anatomically correct? I think not.)
This column is definitely the product
of an overactive imagination. You
* also failed to mention that any
cartoon character that resembles a
human is always clothed — for
example “The Jet sons.”
I must have missed the episode
where Judy gives the kids a full
frontal. If this column was written in
humor, then I and many of my peers
missed where the humor was.
Jon McGrath
freshman
general studies
One Species
In response to John Flaherty’s
“Sick of It All” (DN, Thursday), I
agree that the arguments are getting
tiring, but the situation is far from
resolved. At least you have nothing
against homosexual marriages.
Unfortunately, your point about not
allowing them to raise children is
disturbing.
you can t grant mem marriage
and not grant them the right to raise
children. It’s as simple as that. Your
letter is printed right next to one
from Craig Willford’s “Strong
Household” (DN, Thursday), who
says that he found being raised by
two women to be a positive experi
ence.
The whole point is homosexuals
are human beings and American
citizens, and our government is
obligated to provide for than those
rights to which everyone else is
entitled. Marriage is not just a
religious union. It is also a legally
binding contract. So, why does •
everyone just lode at the religious
aspects of this issue?
If the government is providing
legal recognition of marriage, then
homosexuals must not be excluded.
They are no less human beings than
any other minority group, yet they
are being discriminated against.
These same arguments apply to the
question of raising children. The
United States was founded on the
principles of equality and freedom.
Why are we now trying to deny the
voy basis of our nation?
Jennifer Seitelbach
freshman
English and political science