; , . , t
' ' ~ ' ' ,'', ' , , ';. , ,;fir
. ,,', r ',!t ', ,,, , ! ,,,
, + ' '
K
NAVE6 . T t NC2 ~ACt l
A M5($ J THE6bl
VOF~MW,
Iti A.
'lilt
btMCLAt,~
--(C kAbA
,"0H IN)Tw!
JOAL FLY
60k
t
-1 zii
j1/5'
SI f <
I
I
X1t 61
.00P.5
PO F WPP"M ~ty#asw sw
i
The Michigan Daily
Edited and managed by Students at the
University of Michigan
Wednesday, June 16, 1976
News Phone: 764-0552
Don Bolles' tragic deat
TWO WEEKS AGO today, Don Bolles, a 47-year-old
newsman with 14 years of investigative reporting un-
der his belt at the Arizona Republic, received a tip in an
investigation he was conducting on high-level corruption
in the state. Even though he later admitted from his
hospital bed that he did not trust his underworld con-
tact as a reliable source, he pursued the tip anyway.
That day, as he turned the ignition key in his car, a
powerful bomb planted in the floorboard was detonated.
Bolles, the father of seven children and a Pulitzer prize
nominee eleven years ago for stories treating bribery
and kickbacks, lost a leg in the blast. His other leg and
an arm were later amputated.
Last Sunday, Bolles died in a Phoenix hospital.
The Bolles incident underscores the fact that jour-
nalism, especially investigative reporting; is a profession
laden with risks, and one in which grudges are not quick-
ly forgotten. The alleged killer, who was charged with
the murder shortly after the newsman lost his battle
for life, is accused of planting the bomb and luring Bolles
to the car in revenge for the reporter's past exposes of
underworld activity.
The killing of a reporter in the line of his or her
investigative activities is the most drastic form of prior
restraint imaginable, one which particularly stirs the
anger and emotions of journalists and others who hold
dear a free press. Dan Bolles was killed solely because
he saught ta uncaver and print what the public has a
right ta knaw -- the truth.
Last Sunday. the world of journalism lost a fine re-
porter who for many years brought credit to his profes-
sion. That same day, those committed to the ideals of
journalism and a free press lost a vital little bit of our-
selves.
The year of the primary
By DOC KRALIK
THE PRIMARIES are at last over. The ex-
perts need no longer be confused by Any-
body But Carter movements or the attempted
resurrection of Hubert Humphrey. In this popu-
list year, the startling shift of power from
the party regulars to the primary voter was
apparent at a news conference held by Chi-
cago Mayor Richard Daley on the last day of
the primaries. "By God," Daley said, "You
gotta admire him." Indeed, despite all his in-
clinations to the contrary, Boss Daley had to
admire Carter. The power had gone to the
people.
But what are the consequences of letting the
voters decide? In the Pennsylvania primary,
all good labor Democrats were supposed to band
together behind the Humphrey surrogate to de-
molish once and for all this smooth-talking
Georgian. When they failed to do so, they ruined
Humphrey for good. In the North Carolina pri-
mary, the voters refused to believe that Reagan
was finished, enabling him to persist when no
one thought he could or should. Why have the
voters consistently refused to act in a "rational"
manner?
THE ANSWER IS TWOFOLD, lying In the
nature of the primaries themselves and in the
influence of television. The primaries are spread
alt over the country, and over four months. But
to the primary voter, the campaign is comprised
of only those few television commercials and
speeches that reach him. The candidate must
make an impression quickly, and the first im-
ptressions are the most important.
To solve the dilemma, the wise candidate
relies heavily on his personality. His manner,
his face, and his values are more important
than his record, his ideas, and his party cre-
dentials.
Television has acquired exaggerated force
in the primaries because the average voter gets
most of his political information from the tele-
vision news. This wouldn't be so bad if TV
offered prime time debates and detailed analyses
of the candidates. But TV news reduces a can-
didate's campaign to a series of sixty-second
equal-time segments each night. This, in turn,
wouldn't be so awful if the segments offered
the candidates' differing views in detail. In-
stead, the spots are essentially identical.
POOR TELEVISION reporting compounds the
tendency of the primaries to value personality
over ideology. Moreover, voters appear to react
to candidates in the same way they react to
new TV series. The ideal primary candidate
might be compared to ABC's "'The Bionic Wom-
an" - good-looking, but dreadfully lacking in
plot.
Clearly, the primary system is as riddled
with problems as the caucus system that pre-
ceded it. Yet it is no worse. Barry, Goldwater,
one of the more disastrous nominees in history,
won his nomination almost totally by caucus
support, winning only the California primary.
The principle behind the primaries - testing
voter reaction and campaign skills - is a good
one. The problems are mainly procedural.
By 1980, there may be regional primaries
which will allow coherent debate on policy and
local issues. In addition, TV may recover its
courage, shrug off its shallow scoreboard re-
porting, and help the candidates present their
facts as well as their faces.
Doc Kralik, a former Daily staffer, is a Uni-
versity late student..
BETH FRSFOMAN
PETE PETERSEN
KATHY MULHERN
CASSIE ST. CLAIR
DEBBIE DREYFUS$
BETH STRATFORD
NANCY BOCK
DAN BLUGERMAN.
OLLIE KIESEL
DON SMPSON ....
Sumner Business Staff
.Bu.siness Manager
Advertising Coordinator
Display Advertising Manager
....Circulation Manager
..... Classified Manager
H ead Carier
.splay Adverttising Ass't Manaer
........... Salesperson
............. Salesperson
..... .. . n. . . i..... Salesperson
LettE
clericals
To The Daily:
I wish to express my thanks
to the 373 members of UAW
Local 2001 who voted for me,
and to the many friends and
volunteers who worked so hard
on behalf of the Unity slate of
candidates in an effort to save
the local union we clericals
need so badly. I'm sure they
know, as I do, that the elec-
tion results do not come about
through lack of commitment to
the union on our part, but rath-
er, as the logical outcome of a
systematic campaign, aided and
abetted by the Michigan Daily,
to destroy the great union of
which we are a part.
It is understandable to lose an
election to forthright and dedi-
cated opponents; it is yet an-
other matter to lose through
slander of the vilest sort, slan-
der which the inexperienced and
ignorant staff of the Michigan
Daily chooses to print as
"truth." Apparently, ethics, the
principles of journalism, and a
knowledge of the facts of life
cannot be learned in the uni-
versity's undergraduate class-
rooms. The Daily's partisanship
in our internal local union elec-
tion is no more warranted than
bias on the part of the Univer-
sity Record would be during an
SGA election. But then, of
course, the group receiving the
Daily's support has made many
absurd claims of wishing to
represent the student population
and also, hospital patients. It is
ors to The Daily
also very likely that the Daily
will show this letter to Carolyn
Weeks prior to publication, end
thus give her yet another unfair
advantage over her opponent,
Debbie Moorehead, since this
has been the admitted poli:y
of the Michigan Daily in the
very recent past.
The membership of Local 2001
faces its last great choice be-
fore decertification - the ch ice
between Debbie Moorehead and
Carolyn Weeks for President. On
this choice rides the future of
all University clericals. I urge
all clericals to put aside thir
differences and unite to save
this local. I urge you to give
your support to Debbie Moore-
head.
Susan Sasselarn
TODAY'S STAFF:
News-George Lobsenz, Ken Parsigian, Tim Schick,
Barbara Zahs
Editorial-Jim Tobin
Photo Technician-Scott Eccker