Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

August 09, 1969 - Image 2

Resource type:
Michigan Daily, 1969-08-09

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

j l;'

#n ga41 1
Seventy-eight years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students of the University of Michigan

Congress and the

broadcast lobby

420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.

News Phone; 764-0552

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.




Nixon's welfare plan.

A few cup1
SIXTEEN HUNDRED dollars for a family
of four. That's about $400 per person
or about $1.10 per day. $1.10 is enough
for a few cups of coffee, perhaps a dough-
nut, and a token for an all-night subway
Looking beyond the alternately tough
and compassionate rhetoric of President
Nixon's welfare speech last night, it is
clear that the backbone of his new pro-
gram is this wholly inadequate $1600
family subsidy.
In some states, of course, the proposal
would constitute an improvement over
existing conditions. In Mississippi, for ex-
ample, only $39 is presently provided
each month for a family of four.
And there are other positive steps out-
lined in the President's plan. By elimi-
nating Aid to Dependent Children and
substituting the family subsidy plan, pro-
visions in existing laws which compel
fathers to leave families they can not
support would be eliminated. In addition,
the President's suggestion to graduate
decreases in welfare payments to pov-
erty-level families with small incomes is
a sound (though hardly innovative) re-
sponse to complaints that it is presently
impossible to work one's way off the
welfare rolls. Expansion of day care cen-
ter facilities would work toward the same
end. Hopefully, Congress will accept these
reforms in the present welfare system.
BUT REFORMS are not enough. As the
President noted last night, there is a
crisis in the welfare system today. Un-

of coffee

fortunately, the President does not fully
understand the nature of the crisis.
The most fundamental problem facing
the welfare system today is the pitiful
lack of monetary support which it has
received from federal and state govern-
ments. In this state, for example, welfare
payments are based on 1961 cost of liv-
ing statistics.
But, by and large, there is little the
states can do. Plagued by antiquated rev-
enue systems and conservative legisla-
tures, state governments have, in general,
been unable or unwilling to provide ade-
quate funds for welfare.
Thus, as has been the case with civil
rights and voting rights in the past, it
becomes the responsibility of the federal
government to provide the necessary
funds and guidelines.
But the President's proposal, far from
taking this step, still leaves the states
with the final determination of the size
of welfare payments. Very likely, a num-
ber of states will choose not to add funds
to the $1600 per family. And there is
nothing in Nixon's plan which would in-
duce them to do so.
THE ULTIMATE solution can only be a
dramatic takeover of all welfare fund-
ing by the federal government. Only in
this way, can welfare payments become
sufficiently high to provide adequate
food, clothing and housing for the
nation's poor.

Associate Editorial Director 1968-69
ADMIRERS describe S e n a t o r
John Pastore of Rhode Island
as "peppery."
Pastore, basing his support on
the Italian ethnic vote in largely
Catholic Rhode Island, is the anti-
thesis of his Senatorial colleague,
the dignified and patrician Clai-
borne Pell.
A loyal supporter of the war
during the Johnson Administra-
tion and mildly liberal on domestic
matters, Pastore can be viewed as
a less publicized version of Con-
necticut's Tom Dodd.
Pastore is, however, the favorite
Senator of the broadcast lobby.
It was the Rhode Island Demo-
crat, chairman of the Commerce
Committee's communications sub-
committee, who introduced the bill
(S. 2004) which would forbid the
F.C.C. from considering competing
applications in the renewal of
broadcast licenses. This bill is the
industry's response to the Com-
mission's decision last January to
revoke the license of WHDH-TV
in Boston and grant the frequency
to a competing applicant.
However, o n 1 y Broadcasting
Magazine, the slick trade journal
of the industry, reports this side
of John Pastore.
QN THOSE rare occasions when
Pastore makes the daily news-
papers, it is generally a result of
his harsh attacks on the broad-
casters for excessive violence on
This apparent legislative schizo-
phrenia is explained by a Senate
aide who calls it "Pastore's magic
The aide explained that when
Pastore "rants about violence on
television, he knows damn well
that there is no Constitutional way
for Congress to do anything about
it. The violence hearings are all a
charade, so Pastore can do his real
damage on this."
Not surprisingly, Pastore was the
featured speaker at the National
Association of Broadcasters (NAB)
Convention on March 24. There he
promised a highly receptive audi-
ence that he would do something

Senator Scott

dling the bill for Hart, claimed
that the day Pastore introduced
the bill, "Every member received
a sheaf of telegrams-so thick
they almost looked like a pad-
from his local broadcasters urging
'him to support the measure."
Comstock denied that the NAB
had supplied a form letter and said
"send it to your Congressman."
But, he admitted, "they may have
taken my governmental affairs re-
port, taken their name off it and
stuck on a 'Dear Congressman'"
ly dependent on local radio and
television stations for personal ex-
posure, it is hardly surprising that
the telegramsshould have such a
substantial impact.
And if broadcasters can so easily
influence Senators who have six-
year terms and fairly secure polit-
ical bases, House members, often
without even local reputations, are
twice as quick to recognize their
obligations to the owners of the
As of July 23, 74 bills virtually
identical to S. 2004 had been in-
troduced in the House and re-
ferred to the Interstate and For-
eign Commerce Committee. Its
chairman, Harley Staggers of West
Virginia, who is no particular
friend of the broadcasters, has
shown little inclination to hold
hearings until prodded by the Sen-
There is little mystery to the
proliferation of House bills similar
to Pastore's.
The legislative aide to one
border state Democrat admitted
that "no Congressman makes
news himself; he has to stay on
good terms with the local media.
When we introduced the bill," he
continued, "we sent out letters to
all the stations in our district."
But, the aide said, "We know
that it's a poor bill and hope it
never gets out of committee. If it
does ever get to the floor, we'd
probably have to admit we goofed
and oppose it."
Two Representatives who have
introduced bills similar to S.2004
reported earlier this year, as re-
quired by the House, that they
own more than $5,000 worth of
stock in the Radio Corporation of
America (RCA). RCA owns t h e

National Broadcasting Company.
one of the most active proponents
of the bill.
William Minshall, an Ohio Re-
publican, refused to comment on
any possible conflict of interest
arising from his stock ownership.
But Dave Martin, the incarna-
tion of an elderly Nebraska Re-
publican, said in an interview, "I
introduced the bill because the 33
radio stations in my district, that
I make tapes for, felt it was un-
fair for someone to come in and
apply for their license when it is
up for renewal."
But he contended, "What little
stock I have in RCA doesn't
amount to a row of beans. I didn't
even think about it when I intro-
duced my bill."
of Congressional sponsorship for
S.2004 and its 74 House versions,
its passage is by no means assured,
With the exception of Pastore
and perhaps a few members of the
House, almost no one in Congress
feels strongly about the bill,
Typical is the attitude expressed
by Sid Bailey, legislative aide to
Hugh Scott. Bailey recommended
that the Pennsylvania Republican
co-sponsor t h e Pastore bill be-
cause otherwise Scott will have
nothing to counterbalance his
support of cable television in op-
position to the broadcasters.
Such highly pragmatic and po-
litically calculated support could
evaporate if the bill becomes
widely publicized as special inter-
est legislation. W h epn fbrced to
choose between aroused constitu-
ents and powerful lobbies, some
successful politicians have occas-
ionally sided with the voters.
But to date there are almost no
indications that these legislative
supporters of the broadcast lobby
will encounter any extensive po-
litical opposition.
Even if the bill fails to pass, it
is uncertain whether the F.C.C.
will further apply the precedent
it established in the WHDH case.
Nixon has been asked to name,
successors to two of the three Re-
publican Commissioners. One of
them, former UN Ambassador
James Wadsworth, sided with the
majority in the WHDH case.
However, the Republicans are
expected to take control of the

F.C.C. when the seven-year term
of liberal Democratic Commission-
er Kenneth Cox expires next year.
During the March 5 hearings of
the communications subcommit-
tee Cox described his chances for
reappointment as "a little 1 e s s
than . . . a typical license at the
end of his three year term." When
informed of Sox's lame duck stat-
us. Senator Norris Cotton of New
Hampshire suggested, "why don't
you consider turning Republican?"
unciated by the F.C.C. in the next
few years, the WHDH case illus-
trated that the Broadcast Act of

about the "harassment of broad-
cast licensees."
If a lobbyist is someone who
keeps a straight face when he
talks of Senator Pastore's "great
leadership," then Paul A. Com-
stock is a lobbyist. Comstock, the
NAB's vice president for govern-
mental affairs, was rather effusive
in describing Pastore during an
interview at the Association's
modernistic Washington head-
And if leadership means attract-
ing followers, then Pastore is ad-
mirably qualified. He has 18 co-
sponsors for S. 2004, including
Majority Leader Mike Mansfield,
Minority Whip Hugh Scott, Com-
merce Committee Chairman War-
ren Magnuson and Edward Brooke,
the occasionally Negro Senator
from Massachusetts.
In all, 9 of the 19 members of
the Commerce Committee and 6
of the 10 members of the com-
munications subcommittee a r e
sponsors of the bill. Michigan
Democrat Philip Hart may be the
only opponent of the measure on
the subcommittee.
Jack Blum, an aide who is han-

Senator Hart

1934 provided the Commission
with the legal machinery, if not
th e political will, to effectively
diversify media ownership and ev-
en upgrade t h e programming
quality of commercial broadcast-
Before one raises the spectre of
F.C.C. censorship, ponder the suc-
cess of the laissez-faire. First
Amendment in fostering a com-
petitive and diverse daily press in



The final solution: 1-A

the differences

IN A RECENT' St. Louis address, Con-
gressman Richard D. Ichord (D-Mo.),
chairman of the powerful House Internal
Security Committee formerly known as
t h e House Committee on Un-American
Affairs, revealed what seems to be an un-
fortunate misunderstanding of h o w to
deal with campus disorders.
Speaking to the newly-formed Missouri
Council on National Security, Ichord said
he was prepared to introduce legislation
that would end all draft deferments for
college students. He maintained that the
deferments are "one of the primary un-
derlying causes of campus disorders.
Fresh out of a series of lengthy hear-
ings on Students for a Democratic Soci-
ety, Ichord concluded that "many of the
anarchists on our college campuses are
there solely to get a deferment r a t h e r
than to get an education."
Ichord's argument contains at least two
dubious and even dangerous points. First,
his claim that college deferments are a
major cause of campus disorders has no
substantiation. The Congressman would
,have us believe that college students are
disruptive because they are deferred. So
reclassifying them all 1-A and sending
them. induction notices presumably will
solve the entire problem.
Ichord naively seems to think this
course of action automatically w il1 re-
move the "anarchists" from the campus-
es. But, does he really think they'll leave
college and join the armed services? Does
he really believe that piece of paper with
1-A and "Congratulations -you've b e e n

drafted" will send them all to the near-
est induction center?
One would hardly think so: More likely
there would be an enormous number of
college-age men going to Canada or to
prison for refusing induction. Or, per-
haps, the nation's doctors would be de-
luged by men trying, to find defects in
their mental or physical health.
MORE IMPORTANT than Ichord's ap-
parent naivety, however, is what his
solution essentially stands for - stifling
dissent in the same manner a totalitarian
state would advocate. Find the dissenters
and remove them from society by sending
them to fight the war they oppose. Or im-
prison them if they won't go.
What Ichord seems to want is 100 per
cent approval - a nation of yes-men in-
habiting the campuses to learn the same
things he learned and declare "My coun-
try, right or wrong," after each class' is
Although Ichord claims he is merely
trying to "defend our democratic institu-
tions," his solutions are both absurdly im-
practical and disturbing. They are based
on an unproven premise - that draft ex-
empt students c a u s e disorders because
they are deferred. His formula for draft-
ing them all is totally unpalatable.
ONE ONLY HOPES that other Congress-
men with a better understanding of
the campus dilemma than Ichord will de-
feat his proposed legislation.

-. i
The far side of the Defense Budget

Daily Guest Writer
THIS SUMMER, the Radical Caucus, Resistance and the Independent
Socialist Club began preparing for the creation of a Radical Stu-
dents Union (RSU), hopefully to embrace these three organizations
plus the Tenants Union, SDS, Women's Liberation and unaffiliated
radicals. Daniel Zwerdling's attack' on the proposal (Daily, Aug. 8) is
a study in contradictions.
UnderstandablWbemoaning the splintering, last year, of the Uni-
versity's SDS chapter into groups "too weak and crippled to act on
their own," Zwerdling correctly observes that the split was caused by
fundamental conflicts "over basic political issues."
He then scoffs at the idea that "suddenly SDS, Radical Caucus.
the Tenants Union, and Resistance, and bits and pieces of independents
will merge into harmonious embrace, sift and cull their bitterly divided
politics, and emerge with a common denominator of action and thought.
He sensibly adds, "It sounds good, but will not likely work."
Having decided that a mass-based radical union is hopeless,
Zwerdling reveals what will work: "a .coordinating-communications
umbrella organization with no power of its own" made up of repre-
sentatives from radical groups on campus which would "hash out
grounds for coordinated action."
Zwerdling explains, "When important issues flare suddenly, the
coordinating group could unify radical action." Indeed his group would
accomplish everything an RSU might accomplish only without adding
just "one more cumbersome organization fraught with the sum of all
the pitfalls and disagreement which rack every individual organization
on campus."
ZWERDLING'S is a thoroughly bureaucratic solution, and one
which is internally inconsistent to boot. It seeks unity despite politics
(or at the expense of politics) rather than because of it% Abandoning
hopes to unite the group's membership around some basic agreements,
it looks instead to a leadership committee to do the job from the top
down. Not a very admirable formulation.
In addition, while Zwerdling insists it would "have no power of its
own," he'asserts with equal vigor that it would "accomplish everything"
which an RSU could. Well, it's one or the other; not both. Either this
leadership committee attempts to substitute itself for a mass organiza-
tion (in which case it would be quite powerful indeed, even by defini-
tion), or it will be a harmless social club. Neither model is overwhelm-
ingly attractive.
ANYWAY, HE ASKS, who needs "another glorified Radical Caucus
or Tenants' Union?" What we do need is a campus-wide, non-, super-,
or pan-political (choose your prefix) group which will include everyone
from the rock-ribbed conservative to the Reddest radical. Great; organ-
ize them to do what? To fight ROTC? Enoi war research? Demand
student control or tenure, curriculum, and finances? Zwerdling can't
imagine a union involving SDS, Radical Caucus, Resistance, etc., but
doesn't bat an eyelash at proposing to dump all these plus the Young
Republicans, Young Americans for Freedom, and the "Conservative
Union" into one bag.
Zwerdling concludes by noting that his plan has the double ad-
vantage of coordinating radicals while transcending radicalism, uniting
all students and ending "the useless exercise of radicals organizing
The campus Left is divided, of course. If, on the one hand, the road-
block to cooperation was merely redtape, a' bureaucratic solution like
Zwerdling's committee might serve. If, alternatively, the political divi-
sions were hopelessly deep, no organizational measures would help
seal the breach.
Hopes for a Radical Students' Union are based on the proposition
that the divisions, though real and political, are not unbridgeable. But
to span them will require dealing with political issues politically. No
delegated committee can do that. The memberships of the groups in-

Reporter misrepresentation

To the Editor:
PLEASE PRINT the following in the
hope that some other people might
not be fooled as I was.
On July 19th a young man called
our home, identified himself saying he
was a friend of an ex co-worker of
mine, who had recently been dis-
missed as a teacher at Cassidy Lake.
Since he seemed to know my friend, I
agreed to meet with him.
I asked specifically if he represented
the Argus and he said, "No, I am with
The Michigan Daily." I make this
plain because much consideration has
been given to our project and we had
come to the decision that only "above
board" measures must be used and

that we must substantiate all state-
ments we made.
Anxious that the truth be known
concerning Cassidy Lake and situa-
tions which had arisen while I was
employed there, I consented to an in-
terview after he said he was one of
the editors. Shocked at hearing of and
seeing the "splash" in the Argus, I
therefore called The Michigan Daily
(which I admit I should have done be-
fore) and discovered that he, at one
time, contributed articles but was not
on the staff.
APPARENTLY posing for one paper
while obtaining information for the
Argus is common practice. If the

printed inaccuracies are a classic ex-
ample of their journalistic endeavors,
I can understand why they must re-
sort to an underground press. While
much of what was printed in the ar-
ticle was true, how is the unsuspecting
reader to know where the truth ends
and their version begins.
While it is true the Department of
Corrections has released articles con-
taining inaccuracies, this is not a con-
test to see who can outdo whom with
the biggest fabrication. Our prime ob-
jective is to make people aware that
our prisons are not doing the job they
say-to protect the public by aiding in
the prevention of crime-because FBI
statistics show that over 50 per cent of

inmates released in 1963 had returned
to crime within four years. We desire
to help the .imprisoned individuals re-
direct their thinking toward a produc-
tive non-criminal life and can prove
that in many instances, the effects of
today's prisons are doing the opposite.
If anyone shares our interests, that
of true rehabilitation of criminals, we
welcome you to join us (Chelsea 475-
7276), but it must be a fair and honest
-Alfred C. Smith
Gregory, Mich.
Aug. 4
(EDITOR'S NOTE: The Daily has
received several complaints over the
past few months concerning people

who is represented by the Legal Aid
Society, is seeking eye witnesses of
events involved in his arrest.
He is accused of being part of a
crowd of people who were on Church
Street, near its intersection with S.
University, directed obscene language
at police officers, thus creating a dis-
turbance. This is said to have taken
place June 17 (Tuesday) at or some-
time before the first police charge
down S. University.
His actual arrest occurred shortly
after the first charge, on Forest, north
of S. University. His arresting officer
was Sheriff Douglas Harvey, who on
that evening wore civilian clothes and
carried one arm in a sling.


Back to Top

© 2023 Regents of the University of Michigan