Page 4 --The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, January 8, 1992 Wbe £trbijan BaiIy ":.":":,:o':.ryx:Y: xr xrtt'rrxw"x": Jrtt"'r: "v: :x". 4'rYA ;to::>:11: x : ru 1"rv::" :sx117wJ ::p::ci:4,M,} , }yrv }i "{h" " Y' .{: }" ""rr};.'R;{.";}YN.v }}". MJ},: 'v}y^}' } .. M1... ..1...... F h h v:"'vF; .: :"Y' . Y " "Rr:'lrrl rr . " 11": . rk1 , }1:;. y , 4:fi}}" }r " r .". R.. ?. s ',aY r . . r'r . r..1 A . r'{. «,. 1"". .."" I rr." . . A: ".... A 1JA. . Mr AL" "N. r} , "."'M r . ."vrr k1 .rr "':ti : : ."11 ." LS .,R 1 Yh rv...Ar. ti{11"" :11:1 .". }+ }'"}"Y r hi: { : { }f:",::::::ti r}}:": }:":v:"i'.":v:": Y.::: }:>:{'::: : k .....:..:...... .11 f .1 " '"0. 1 .. M1:::: ;d : }:: ""."Y ,.'' rY". M y {. +} 1 J 1 .M " r YMJr".":"}:"YS : {.':,'.. "'"{"... . {. . i J r ""1. " 'Y"Mf Y, '1"":{J"f M ,.y . {, J J....... . r '1: + ..L:^:":"": ::"...........::":":":":{"S: .r .{ "AV 1{"rYr" I ".'K 11"."r. ". f. 1Yf}".{ "Y.* ", r. }. "{L" ,1"rrf'r. J. .J r. tiff M1 .J. . ". . ."1 .r .rf, ..AA.. . :1. :"" .. r h4 . Y. A. " { h.V"rf} r " .,Y . . A' "Yi. :''1 " ,1. M " ":1M y " "." 1M.'J." r k' ..411" " rr .A . h . r. r . ". r1 "J: JJ ' 1y }C::"::r: S:i ": '"":h"." ".M NO . A :4Y.YN: rr "1 . r. J. SS},. L'S. AY "Y "."." r" M " A4M' 1411{tiLM::.1" ": "{ " rili r. ""-- ..rr ,r 1""41 "n h'"Xr 1..,. . 51,,, ,r r h""T'{' h,.M 11 .L 1: " M r:1v :""rJ}:: t"}}:": ate. {+. .1 Ah A1Y1 .....:::::...,........:::.M:::::::: ":. .., ...:::...; ..................... 1..{1..1.::.........1 R.....1...... A, .R...,..:. .1.....:1...1. Media faE ls ericarl a le p p 'Stoned' in controversial film by Amitava Mazumdar Never before has the mystery of President John Kennedy's assassination been discussed with such drama. Oliver Stone offers a wonderful discussion about why President Kennedy was killed and who may have done it. Because of limited space, however, Stone is unable to focus and a third aspect of the tragedy: how the American media failed the American people. The American media should have been questioning the activities surrounding the events in Dallas from day one. Instead the press accepted the government's every word like lapdogs. The government played the media like a piano. The offensive that the press has launched against the film JFK isn't out of character. The "responsible" media has always isolated assassination investiga- tors as whackos and loons, calling them "assassination buffs." Never, has the press involved itself in the resolution of the crime. Instead, the press has, from the start, failed to ask the proper questions. Why did the media sit quietly as President Lyndon Johnson appointed Allen Dulles to the Warren Commission. Dulles was fired as CIA chief after the botched Bay of Pigs. Hie was known as hostile to Kennedy and Mazuindar is an LSA sophomore and is an Editorial Assistant for the Daily's Opinion Page. his administration. Why did the media so readily accept the Warren Commission when its shortcomings were so clear from the start? The testi- mony of witnesses had been ignored or twisted, but the press bilities: First, to open a public discus- sion about Kennedy, Vietnam, and role of intelligence agencies in warfare to gain an understand- ing of what forces were at work in 1963. Kennedy is described by The testimony of witnesses had been ignored or twisted, but the press never asked why. never asked why. The BBC produced an in depth investigation of the Kennedy assassination, called "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." The networks refused to air it. Why? Robert Groden, co-author of High Treason, advisor to Oliver Stone and a long-time assassina- tion investigator, says, either the press didn't care, or "they served their masters well." Who knows. which one is a more accurate excuse for the behavior of the press? The point isn't to accuse the press of being puppets of govern- ment, but to criticize the press' failure to search for the truth. But, that doesn't mean that they haven't the chance to correct past wrongs. Stone's film puts the Kennedy assassination back on the political and social agenda. The establishment media has been given a third chance to find out who killed President Kennedy. If the media were to miss this chance, the tragedy of Kennedy's death would be compounded. The press has three responsi- many historians as hostile to the CIA and resentful of their influence over policy in Southeast Asia. Second, the press needs to give the American people the evidence gathered by assassina- tion "buffs," all of which has to this day been ignored by those members of the "credible" media. Third, the press must actively involve itself in a new indpendent investigation of the assassination. The Warren Commission and the House Subcommittee on Assassi- nations have both proven the government's inability to find the truth. The press has already called the Warren report flawed. But, that isn't enough. The American people depend on the press for the truth. This may be the most important issue of the century. Did our government kill our president? Certainly, the press shouldn't bear the entire burden of Kennedy's death, but it's high time the press did their job by trying to find the truth about what happened on Nov. 22, 1963. Fair elections Duke shouldn't be denied Constitutional right to run Derennial campaigner and former Ku Klux Klan I Grand Wizard David Duke of Louisiana is once again on the campaign trail. Fresh from a guberna- torial defeatinhis home state, Duke has announced his intention to seek the Republican nomination for president in more than 30 states. But not all of those states are willing to guarantee him his right- ful place on the primary ballot. Since the announcement was made last month, a great deal of opposition has arisen in the hierar- chy of the Republican Party to Duke's candidacy. It would be better, they contend, if Duke's brand of reactionary racial politics was not associated with the party at all. So intense is the opposition to Duke's candi- dacy that many states have tried to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot. The Michigan Republican Party failed in its attempt, and the Florida Republicans are now moving to exclude him. Duke is a seething racist who plays on many people's underlying resentment toward minorities, and the scattered but growing support for his platform is indeed troubling. But he meets the Constitution's requirements to run for president, and should therefore have an equal opportunity to do so. The party is attempting to deny him this right. The Republican Party justifies its actions by claiming that Duke's policies are inconsistent with the Republican platform. This is a deception. Though neither has been photographed with a swastika armband, both President George Bush and candidate Pat Buchanan support similar poli- cies and foster similar sentiments. In reality, the Republicans are moving to keep Duke's name off the ballot for no reason other than their fear that his past association with the Klan will tarnish the GOP image. This travesty of fair campaign practices could .have dangerous ramifications. If the Republican Party can deny Duke - whose politics are repug- nant to many Americans - a spot on the ballot, will they then deny other candidates a spot for subjective reasons? Who will decide which candi- dates are acceptable? Duke's name should appear on the ballot in Florida and in every other state where he chooses to run. The voters should then pull someone else's lever. One bullet? Just ask Mr. Reagan by Matt Adler Few students at the University were alive to remember the assasination of John F. Kennedy. Many students, like myself, can remember the attempted assasination of Ronald Reagan. I remember sitting alone in the kitchen, gazing at the black and white televised images of Presi- dent Reagen clutching his shoulder as he walked unassisted into a Washington hospital. The attempt on Reagan's life was the result of one man, John Hinckley Jr., and one gun, a .22 caliber pea shooter. Hinckley was clearly a psychotic. The only rationality he demonstrated, with the possible exception of his disdain for Reagan, was his fondness for Jodi Foster. Never- theless, he was nuts - he tried to shoot down cowboy Ron with a rabbit pistol. If there were absolutely no other evidence to suggest that Lee Warren commision's conclusion that Oswald acted alone. Stone has been widely criticized by the mainstream media for making faulty assertions and revising history. The condemnations, which columnists from every major American newspaper have levied against Stone, are grossly unfair. First, as a film, JFK is extraordi- nary - endlessly complex and diverting. Secondly, Stone's film never purports to be a documentary. To the contrary, it merely presents one particular theory about the assassination of Kennedy. While Stone's film may be an overly suspicious view of the assassination, it provides a logical balance when compared to the Warren Commission report, which naively embraced weak explanations and even weaker arguments. There are certainly assertions nity. Watergate, and the book All The President's Men by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein provide testimony to the sort of hungry reporting which good journalists do. Additionally, it seems absurd to suggest that the Warren Commission would have been directly involved in a cover-up. A man such as Earl Warren, who challenged the basic tenets of American society when his court ruled on Gideon v. Wainwright * and Miranda v. Arizona, would never condone state sponsored assasination of any sort. Warren would have surely implicated CIA and other government officials if he had evidence of their involve- ment. Despite the intensely suspi- cious nature of Oliver Stone's JFK, the film should be praised for its cinematic quality, and for reviving an important issue which never received proper attention. If Nuts and Bolts by Judd Winick Thu1 4MOCN' Wfl . -N OIW -- - NI.I MgJ~j , 5ECONO ANNUAL LIST OF TH~INGS WE HAVM IHAT 1T UP 1 OLVR KIPS7ER.S WITH POR~ING 1991. 10t 5y WAT.50N PHLYM AS LONUSCHU*S 5E~ SeI SAM HOS . SIO4)~COI N B~NRWEAT i~kfr7&45, CHRLS7OftER CcwHR {R ,gG mgm f ATPR( cs cve1 Ah'IV I A kC HAS i~A F A'Zf(QOUA I O F-n4fiEScr N iQ4B1s, j MANI i '"IMA5N-n4F -i OMMAJ NI"