Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / March 17, 1970, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
Page Two THE DAILY TAR HEEL Mcrch 17. John Agar TTl If JT'Jf' 1 II S .Or ' 0 78 Years of Editorial freedom t . H 73 Til fh I ff tl i' ( fi ?! KJ? iJt Las is J w J J' m IjLq kJs& iJ Bobby Nowell For Editor Today you vote for the editor of the Daily Tar Heel. Your vote is important because it will help determine what the Tar Heel is going to be like for the next year. The Tar Heel is important to this campus for a number of reasons. First, it provides the students, as well as the administration, faculty,, non-academic workers, and townspeople, with the news of what is happening on campus. Second, it serves as an expression of student opinion in a University where student opinion has few other means of expression. The newspaper is an important part of this community because it is the 'only real student newspaper. It is supported by student fees and it is read by just about everyone on campus. Because of the major role which the newspaper plays on campus, and the functions which it fulfills, it is important that the editor elected by students be the best possible one. The editor is going to have to be someone who not only has the journalistic credentials to be editor, but also the credentials as a human being concerned with the world in.which he lives. Of the eight candidates for the editorship of this newspaper, only one candidate has both sets of credentials. '' - I Bobby Nowell is not only: an accomplished- journalist with the talent, experience, and knowledge to be an exceptional editor; he also h is a perception of the world and ,n proDlems, and a willingness to e honestly about that world, n of which attributes make him the one candidate to vote for. The other candidates all lack a certain kind of credibility. Douglas Vote NO; -Keep The , DTH If you vote YES on the Tar Heel jferendum today, you are voting lo discontinue the Tar Heel. If you vote NO, you are voting to keep it. The Tar Heel is the campus newspaper. It provides a service for 'he students which the administration; happens to feeL. is worth requiring the students to pay for. - The service is two-fold. First, the newspaper is the only source of campus news. Without it, there would be no practical way of knowing what the free-flick was, or who was speaking on campus, etc. The newspaper also provides an editorial "watchdog" of the administration for the students. Without the Tar Heel, there would be no such watching. The argument has been raised that the Tar Heel is too radical. But the editor of the newspaper is elected, so the students have a chance each spring to determine ,vhat the political philosphy of the newspaper will be. The Enfield-Benfield Goo Steve Enfield and Dennis have been charged by a number of students of falsely using names on an endorsement sheet. The co-candidates for the editorship of theTar Heel have admitted they were morally wrong in using the names, and have decided to remain in the race for the editorship.. A number of individuals have said they will contest the elections today because of the Enfield-Benfield leaflet. That is unfortunate. It is unfortunate that all the work that went into this election might in some way have Todd Cohen Editor Bobby Nowetl Harry Bryan B if I Miller Bob Chapman Mary Burch Art Chansky Associate Editor ?,Lanagirg Editor News Editor Assoc. Managing Editor Arts Editor Sports Editor Bob Wilson Frank Stewart Business Manager Advertising Manager Pter Hatch Night Editor This Issue Campbell is Ph.D. candidate in mathematics, . which makes us wonder how he would have time to be editor of the Tar Heel. Bryan Cumming thinks the Tar Heel should be "fun" to read, as if the reality of the world were not the kind of thing to have to read about. Steve Enfield and Dennis Benfield have worked for the Tar Heel, and neither demonstrated enough of a knowledge of either the world or the workings of a newsroom to show cause why he would make a good editor. Andy Schorr and Rusty Carter have virtually no newspaper experience except for Carter's sports work. And Tom Gooding, who has worked for the Tar Heel, " has not really demonstrated a willingness to speak up on the issues. When he could have used his position on the newspaper to make his ideas known, he chose to remain silent within his anonymity. Bobby'Nowell does not have any of those failings. He has a wealth of journalistic experience, a penetrating ability to write, as well as a willingness to say what he feels, regardless of how distasteful his truth might be to some readers. That is the kind of editor the Tar Heel needs. The University and the world are a mess today. Journalists in general have a bad name. What we do not need is an editor of the Tar Heel who is incompetent, or ambivialent, or unwilling to tell the truth because it might hurt someone's feelings. We need an editor who can see thfc, world, and who is not afraid to tell us what he sees. . We endorse Bobby Nowell for editor of the Daily Tar Heel. The argument against the Tar Heel's radicalism is not so much against the Tar - Heel's being political as against the Tar Heel's being radical. The implication there is that the newspaper would be okay if it was only conservative. But that is no argument for doing away with the Tar Heel. If the Free Press committee wants a conservative Tar Heel, why doesn't it merely run a conservative candidate? The students need the Tar Heel. It tells them what is happening (how else could the campus have been so well informed of what the Free Press group was doing rather than through the Tar Heel?) and it tries to champion student rights. Without the Tar Heel, students would have to operate in the dark. There would be no campus news, and there would be no voice for and of the students. Vote NO on the referendum today. Keep the Daily Tar Heel. You need it more than not. been for nought. The error has been clarified to our satisfaction. Enfield and Benfield have apologized and withdrawn all names that were on the endorsement sheet. If anyone is going to be hurt by this episode, it is going to be Enfield and Benfield. The students have been informed through the Tar Heel of the errors in the endorsement sheet, and it seems there would be little need in contesting the election unless it were for some purely political reason. Criticism of this year's Tar Heel has run thick, and today should end it. Much of the anger which has been directed against the paper has been well merited even welcomed. What disturbs me is that so many people, editorial candidates in particular, have been unable or unwilling to recognize just what the source of the trouble was. . The result is that the race for editorship has been politics-as-usual: vague, heated criticism, followed by even Jess well-defined "total" commitments to straighten things out. The candidates' main endeavor has been to manufacture . slogans and then, of course, to find an issue to justify the slogan. Does "A Return to Responsible Journalism" sound smart? Good then. . Jet's criticize the DTH for "irresponsiblility." So it goes. , Ken Ripley put it best: "So much is exaggerated, suppressed, or ignored. Personality becomes a key factor, slogans and catchwords plus nice, empty promises rule the field. . .Candidates latch, onto any experience' or 'qualifications' they can print." Personality is indeed a key factor. An-, amiable, vacuous smile is always first-rate poster material. A glaze of slickness, a way with abstract nouns that have lost their referents, a look of intense thoughtfulness, followed by a sentence which is entirely grammatical and entirely ; meaningless these too often are a candidate's main recommendations. What it is, of course, is the personality that hides personality, the charm that takes the place of character. If "personality" is anything more than an actor's gesticulations, then the main issue in this campaign has been impersonality. The reason is not far to seek. This year's Tar Heel has been, on the whole, a good paper don't stop reading. Its editorial page has been quite as literate, and a good deal more broadranging, than anything you are likely to find - on the newsstands. Its sports and news coverage has generally been good, and sometimes excellent. But the fact that so many people feel deeply that something is wrong with the paper is ample evidence that something is. Not the failure to cover such-and-such a story, or missing an item in the Campus Calendar. These have always been criticisms, and will continue to be, as long as the Tar Heel is staffed by students, forced by its printer to work on an unrealistic deadline, and, ultimately, typed and laid out by people who are not in sympathy with the paper. Each of these problems has its own 'validity but each has been magnified and distorted by one overriding gripe: Todd Cohen. I think that if someone studies the Tar Heel ten years from now, hell probably Jim Eldridge NOTE: The following has borrowed greatly from the thoughts of a philosopher-king I know, who helped me fofmualte my thoughts on this subject (though they're still not concrete). To him, I am indebted, and' although he shall remain anonymous (as all modern philosopher-kings should), I wish to thank him. Thanks, P-K. The lineup for this year's UNC Rites of Spring that event (?) called "Jubliee" was announced quite early this year. Perhaps to give all the "straights" time to get good reservations for the beach that weekend. Indeed, the DTH article began with a reference to "Jubilee freaks"; it's no longer a "something 8-1 i p v i V ' for everybody." Not that it ever was, or ever could be. But it is obvious that the more hip kids have taken control of the Union Entertainment Committee, and while this is not necessarily a bad thing (from my viewpoint), it is another indication of the growing rift between the straight and non-straight on this 'divided campus: an often sterotyped Southern school trying to be cool, if it can only figure out what "cool" is and then obtain it with a degree of moderation. If we go back a few years and follow the development of Jubilee (with a little subjective labelling), we can notice that this trend toward coolness is not really radical but still obviously amateurish. 1967: Petula Clark, The Association, The Temptations pop & soul 1968: Rufus & Carla Thomas, Neil Diamond, Nancy Wilson, Spanky & Our Gang soul, folk-rock, straight nightclub I ' The Daily Tar Heel is published : by the University of North Carolina : Student Publication's Board, daily : except Monday, examination : periods and vacations and during : summer periods. : Offices are at the Student Union : Bldg., Univl of North Carolina. : Chapel HU!, N.C. 27514. Telephone numbers: editorial, sp.orts. j; news-9 33-1 011; business, j: circulation, advert ising-9 33-1 16 Z: j: Address: Carciina Union, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514. j: J&jcond class postage prdd zt VS.. :; Post O ff ice in Chapel Hill, N ,C. j V,V.VVi,,V(,,Vt,,,lv,(,,'(-VV,At V -A.V ,' : JiiBlle Cohen's editorship unsuccessful we Know tnai now, trom the reaction it has eacnea our o no means undistinguished. This year s Tar Heel, say what you wjll. has always been first in advocating students' and individuals' rights, in supporting the underdog, in refusing to be coerced into .insignificance or a panty-raid mentality. It has never shied away from its role as spokesman of the student body. It has never for a moment blinded itself to the fact that being a young person, in this country, in this time, is serious business indeed: and that the era of raccoon coats and rah-rah is over and done with. Yet now the Tar Heel is stigmatized with "irresponsibility," and students antipathy towards the paper, if the candidates have estimated it properly, is enormous. The reason, as far as I can assign a reason for it, is Todd Cohen's insularity and, to a lesser extent, that of the entire editorial page. Cohen is an editor capable of writing five perfectly reasonable editorials and then following them with one .which knocks half the student body out of their -chair and for no good reason; It's a matter of not being aware of what the general standard of taste and judgment is not speaking the lingo of your readership. The result is that criticism has centered on Todd Cohen's personality. ; So, for this campaign, most of the candidates have opted for smiling impersonality. They reason, most people are tired of being jarred by the Tar Heel; they're looking, basically, for mediocrity: e: Cam If and goodtime pop 1969: Chamber Brothers, Blood, Sweat & Tears, Paul Butterfield Blues Band psychedelic soul and rock bluesjazz ' . 1970: B.B. King, Sweetwater, Joe Cocker, Grand Funk Railroad black blues, jazzrock, white blues, bluesy hard rock Members of the committee which chooses these groups will no doubt argue that they are changing with the times, closely following the progression (cr regression) of this amorphous monster called rock-and-roll, and grabbing up the superstars or potential superstars "of the moment." But what they are actually doing is laying out $50,000 or whatever (the figure is unimportant; it's always unfathomable) for a certain ideological group on campus which will reap the benefits of everyone's contribution. Sort of like Social Security. As evidenced by the attempt to create a carnival atmosphere at last year's Jubilee the giant balloon, the cotton candy stands, the body-painting, et al. what the Jubilee committee would Letters to the Editor Dear Daily Tar Heel: ' I sympathize with Carlyle Sitterson's latest plight. What a spot to be in! On one side I have to say "hooray," it's happened again. Another possibly self-righteous social leader has been undermined. Maybe now we can stop supression and deal with the probelm as a whole, not just as a threat to our socio-politico-religio-economico-etc.-hold on things. There is another side, just as there is to everything. Any variation from the normally allowed set of variations in social behavior probably arises from an individual need not answered by the existing system.' On a guts level "You ain't got what I want. 111 look elsewhere." The more pressure exerted at this point in time only serves to justify this split. The problem is not to "stop these kids from using drugs" ("drugs" being a bad word i.e., a threat., in one form or another), but to try to answer the needs of the newr people on the earth w ho know life shouldn't be this way. Drugs are only one frontier of the confrontation or opportunity for reevaluation. They are for the moment the most predominant, of conduct Pi If SS7 1 V. 'J t. Be "He t: i r. is is at any ra:e, vha I want, n! of'tH yeir'y Tar HfJ is wo;h preser i n:s does not mean that the candidate 1 support must agree with me on every issue. or en any is.su e only that he mut be keenly and vigorously aware of w hat it means to be alive lodav. in America. 1970. By the same token. I want to see the Tar Heel improved technically the next editor must be experienced. Most important, the next editor must be a man of broad sympathy and ability to communicate .with people whose convictions differ from his own. He must be not merely a critic of what goes onhe must be part of it. He must be able to speak the language of this campus and this society moderately, with sweet reasonableness, but always with conviction. For these reasons, I'm following Ken Ripley whom I admire, though generally we disagree in endorsing Tom Gooding for editorship. Ripley arguc-d long and well on behalf of Gooding's candidacy in last Wednesday's Tar Heel, so I don't feel I have to trot out every conceivable argument. But some of Gooding's qualifications, which I think are of utmost importance, are these: He is experienced. I'm not talking about experience as a stringer or cub reporter a la Jimmy Olsen usually with either a hick paper or one's father's. Cooding has served on the Tar Heel as staff writer, associate editor, managing jh of JciVervo. like to' do is change Kenan Stadium from a Filmore South into a Chapel Hill Woodstock. This is a very admirable venture, but it can be done a lot more economically. Anyone who went lo Bethel, N.Y. or read the special Life Magazine edition on Woodstock knows that the kids who gathered there didn't really care about those big-name groups on the stage a mile away from them. What Woodstock gave them was a feeling of brotherhood, of camaraderie with those of "their own kind." It was a mutual experience of sharing pain, joy, hardship and good times in an atmosphere devoid of the plasticity of our electronic, warring world. It was, in a sense, a return to nature, to people as themselves, and the amplified groups on the stage were really a holdover from the Establishment which has created instant stars, instant art, instant culture through the mass media. The point is that those people on stage at Woodstock did not have to be Jefferson Airplane, Janis Joplin, Sly & The Family Stone, Crosby, Stills & Nash. They could have been anybody, playing just about anything. Because they were Ca T in course, with the latest incident involving drugs at Ft. Bragg in the new s at the same time as the arrest of Sitterson Jr., There will probably be a violent reaction against Chapel Hill. There will be the standard closed-minded reaction, "drug users become killers" just as there hss been with "marijuana leads to heroin addiction." But think of the opinion of an area resident, or simply a North Carolina resident, who remembers the 1930's when we were No. 1 in communists and not far from it in drugs. Or what if you were the representative from this resident's area or an official in the state government. Wouldn't you. be itching to shake something i'p at UNC, to put someone in charge over whom you would have more control? Wouldn't this lead you to make sure Sitterson's name was mentioned at least twice every f-hour on the radio for two davs? Again, let's look more at causes, not effects. Is it really the man we have to crucify or the attitude that one person is at fault? Are drugs the cause of conf.-rt or a cnnV':: r.t symbol? I- ::;y ;'. J:: is i hate gru'jp that s perpetuate conflict rather than solve it, I don't aree with what's happening irj I III I 9 'YZ)XZV -lss : r. d i' the .J G o o ding is in. Morfhead Scholar, with a m.v.-r journalism, Goocir.g niSI brir.jj a cr.::, intelligence to the Tar Heel whuh ( :di 'es c. Most important. Goodir. dedicated, and he is the only ca..J..i. who combines contction with an to communicate svmpathetica'lv v other points of view. Gooding will :.:; the idealism the Tar Heel r.ced to effective, without at the 5rr.e :. succumbing to bias. So manv of the car.d. addressed tnemse ves to this iwa . fairness with resulting commitment r. be. in effect, fair, w eak editors. '. he-he know; but clearly they have been ur..,b to formulate the problem for them !,.. Gooding offers the student body a char.r tit ii.: i r 1 1 i.i . i.i .i i t.i .' i which should not be raised. endorsed Tom. This itself is significant i.- i. " !.... j um uetause rviru Jim i are rtur of diverse opinion and commitment, bu on target. He writes: Tom 'is the only Candida:? 1 can say who has consistently cared more for the paper than himself." There are few d raises hicher than th .t Vois TotAY- me not what was felt, experienced, lived among those thousands of kids. The same applies to our little imitation of Woodstock. A goodly number of the audience is so drunk or stoned that they can't even see the stage. But for the others, this feeling of the Age of Aquarius cannot be bought with big-name talent, with materialistic carnival atmosphere. It can only come from the soul, and I'm not referring to a brand of music. Therefore, 'Mr. Henry and committee members, when you lay your money on the line, remember that yours could be the testing ground for young groups that aren't yet famous or terribly expensive (to a slight degree, that may be the case this year unless, as has been postulated, you waited too long to get the superstars) and spend more on what could make Jubilee a Woodstock: simplicity. Of course, the straights don't dig Woodstock, although their fraternities and sororities are a sophisticated il) version of the same thing. And whether you like it or not, the straights are Dart of our generation. And there should be a place for everybody in the Age of Aquarius. iVI uuie South Building, with the silly game I ha'.e to play to get a degree. But it's th:s option or dropping out. So until the revolution, let's make infiltration as easy as possible. Pop a pt. for Christ on the weekend, but come back swinging on Monday advocating Science because that's where we are right now, unfortunately. You can't change a system by attacking symbols because you become one "in the process. You can't overthrow a suppressive government, without becoming an even more suppressive bureaucracy afterwards. (You Marxists and advocates of history had better read history more carefully.) ; 1 should by all rights be glad Sitterson was in a b:-A spot and has lost much favor becaj,e of his .son's bust. I am a student v.ho docs not appreciate the educational system, the political system, or our social mores. I am a user who wpuld advocate the legalization of drugs. I should feel some gratification in vengeance, but here is a man caught in the middle and ''v v;:-hed no g.o.i from even the ' ' :- r .yv.-::.u-f.-.r. A di.vntcr, annony mouily editor He&l c l v . i i il
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
March 17, 1970, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75