Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / Sept. 14, 1989, edition 1 / Page 10
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
aMHm""iiiH'ii mi""tij'"'lim ,"THg-miji "'ttam -mnp Mhiym-'iiiKmii 'mt mhli mii tttky im i4 " "Mj 10flhe Daily Tar HeelThursday, September 14, 1989 Dialing 1 -800 to cash in on free food 97th year of editorial freedom Sharon Kebschull, Editor WlLUAM TaGGART, Managing Editor MARY Jo DunNINGTON, Editorial Page Editor JUSTIN McGuiRE, University Editor TAMMY Blackard, State and National Editor TOM PARKS, Business Editor DAVE GLENN, Sports Editor MELANE BLACK, Design Editor Julia Coon, News Editor JENNY CLONINGER, University Editor Charles Brittain, City Editor CARA BONNETT, Arts and Features Editor Kelly Thompson, Omnibus Editor KlM AVETTA, Design Editor DAVID SUROWIECKL Photography Editor A lofty proposal Airport expansion plan is unrealistic board opinion The proposal to -expand the Horace Williams Airport may fit neatly into the University's long-range plan to physically develop and unify the campus, but unfor tunately, expansion plans do not fit as snugly into the relatively small geographi cal area as proponents are hoping. While Chancellor Paul Hardin's idea to attach an additional 500 feet to the airport's 3,500 feet runway is a prudent suggestion, any more construction would present safety and noise problems to the community. Presently, the Horace Williams Airport accommodates critical hospital business and a few other University affairs, serving an important role in University matters. While the entire airport should not be destroyed, critics of the expansion plan brought up legitimate concerns and sug gestions Tuesday evening at a public hear ing about the airport. Because the 970-acre airport is located close to residential developments, resi dents fear that further development would lead to a higher number of accidents, pos ing harm to their families. While support ers of airport expansion claim that the airport does not and would not present hazards to the town, a history of four accidents within a mile of the airport in the last eight years, the last one being the fatal crash of a single-engine plane on Aug. 11, has only intensified citizen's concerns. Tar Heels beware During the town meeting, the oppo nents requested a set of guidelines to re strict the airport traffic, including banning nighttime flights, restricting it to Univer sity business, stopping recreational use and maintaining a log of accidents and flights to be given to the city. While the chancellor did not promise to abide by any of these guidelines, he did propose the extended runway to lessen the noise and increase the safety. The University's master plan to physi cally enhance and enlarge the campus includes other solid ideas, such as propos als to build four parking decks and to add more bike paths to outlaying areas of the University. While increasing the traffic at the Horace Williams Airport could be a practical step in the development scheme, Chapel Hill residential areas are simply growing too fast to accommodate enlarg ing the airport. Relocating the airport is an interesting idea, but as of now, any discus sion on the topic has led to a stagnation on where it could be moved, and that would be a costly venture. University officials should listen to the residents concerns before any expansion plan is accepted. Lengthening the runway is an acceptable form of expansion, but traffic needs to be restricted to only Uni versity business. While the importance of flight is monumental, the airport expan sion plans are a little too lofty. I was baking a batch of Nestle cookies not too long ago when I noticed an 800 number on the back of the box. So I called it. That's the wacky sort of hijinx we columnists live for. A recorded message informed me that a Nestle sales representative would be with me shortly, and immediately afterwards a woman picked up the line. "Hi," I said. "I was just baking up some of your cookies and I noticed this number on the box, 1-800-NESTLES. And I got to wonder ing, what kind of comments do you get from people?" "Oh, we get all sorts of comments," the friendly sales rep assured me. "Questions, complaints, recipe requests, inquiries about nutritional information people are always curious about a product." The sales rep went on to explain how all the suggestions and comments were compiled regularly for use by the Nestle marketing department. She was quite good at making easy conversation, and as I listened to her chat away it occurred to me that in her job she probably spent a lot of time on the phone with lonely people. I pictured the sales rep talking with somebody's forgotten grandmother, an old lady who called Nestle not so much to comment on the cookies as to have someone listen to her. I started to ask the sales rep about this, but thinking of it depressed me, and suddenly I didn't feel like a hip columnist anymore. In fact, I felt kinda stupid for calling, and I really just wanted off the phone. (I thought about asking the sales rep for her name, but I was sure she'd be required to give a standard Nestle alias, to prevent people from harassing her at home.) "Well, I really don't have any comments about the cookies " I began. "What product was that, sir?" she asked. Matt Bivens Staff Columnist "The Nestle Toll House Ready to Bake Cookie Dough, Chocolate Chip, 24 Individ ual Scoops With Real Butter," I said, quoting from memory. "Oh good," she said. "And you're enjoying them?" "Yeah, they're great," I said. My sales rep took the information down and I said goodbye. Before I could hang up, however, she asked for my name and address. For a panicky second I was convinced Nestle was going to send someone to break my legs for frivolously wasting their time. But no. The thing is, NESTLE IS GOING TO SEND ME FREE STUFF! Just for taking the time to call and say, "Yeah, your cookies aie great." Greed replaced melancholy, as the college student's instinct for free food took hold. I happily gave my address and hung up. But as I was waiting for the cookies to cool, I realized I'd seen 800 numbers on other food products. Maybe by calling them I could get even more free food . . . My roommate Gary came home just then, so I enlisted him in my quest. Together we pawed through our cupboards, examining each food container for a phone number. Before long we made a chilling discovery: The num ber for Folgers Coffee is the same as the number for J iff Peanut Butter! Gary explained this was because they were both Proctor & Gamble products. So we called Proctor & Gamble, and I told the new sales rep that we had a recipe which used Folgers and Jiff in equal parts, and could we get something free for it? She said she couldn't mail us anything except for Jiff recipes. Disappointed, we never theless accepted. But I wasn't discouraged. I was convinced that there exists in this country an entire counter-culture of people surviving solely on freebies from 800 food information lines. And I was determined to join them in their free and easy existence. Next we called 1-800-FLCHPS. By now I was in a tailspin, headed for out of control. Gary, perhaps seeing where I was headed, quietly slipped away to his room. When the Frito Lay sales rep answered, I complained about a ficti tious bag of stale Ruffles Ranch Chips. She courteously took my address and promised to send a check for $1.39 to cover the cost of the chips. It was that easy. I was going to bring Frito Lay to its knees. Just then my other roommate Will came in. I was wild-eyed, shouting something about "a gold mine" and "never having to work again." I tried to explain my new "exploited worker's duty to steal from my oppressors" theory to Will, but he was unimpressed. And as I stepped back and listened to myself talk, I realized that, while nickeling and diming Corporate America to death had its temptations, I was abusing a genuine public service offered in good faith by these companies a pretty low thing to do. I remem bered the Nestle lady, and the lonely people I was now convinced she dealt with every day. What if these companies grew tired of being taken by people like me and chose to disconnect their 800 lines? Where would that leave people who had to call an 800 number instead of a friend to share a recipe? Later that day I called Frito Lay back. I quietly told the sales rep that the chips were fine and I didn't want the $1.39 after all. Matt Bivens is a senior political science major from Olney, Md. Readers9 Forum Keep Mobil out of North Carolina After several environmental disasters in volving oil spills in recent years including the infamous Exxon Valdez the oil industry now wishes to explore the coast of North Caro lina. Mobil Oil Corp. recently released a draft report for the exploration of a possible source of oil and natural gas some 45 miles off the coast of Cape Hatteras at an underwater reef. Securing permission to search the reef is a long, involving process, and one that takes precau tions to avoid damage to the environment But as history demonstrates, there are no certainties in the oil world. bhmmb As it stands, the people of North Caro lina will have the op portunity to express their concerns on sev eral occasions, which they must do. The North Carolina coast is rich in history and undevel oped nature, of which the state is proud. Even though drilling mishaps are relatively rare, the potential for disaster exists; such potential for harm to our coast should be enough to worry state officials and citizens. Before Mobil can begin drilling, it must ultimately receive permission from the Miner als Management Service (MMS), a division of the U.S. Department of the Interior. Presently, state authorities are reviewing the report and will conduct public hearings during October in Wilmington, Greenville, Elizabeth City and Buxton. This will be the first opportunity for the public to voice their opinions during the The historic Outer Banks and its wildlife are too valuable to place in jeopardy. approval process. In November, the MMS will release its draft report on the environmental impact of such exploration off the state's coast; this report will also be open to public comments around the state. According to Mobil, the more than 8,000 exploratory wells drilled by the company dur ing its history were accident-free. But if Mobil discovers oil near Cape Hatteras, large-scale drilling would follow. This is where the prob lems could begin. Mobil will release its final plan for explora- tion in January, 1990, to be followed by the final MMS environ mental report in Febru ary. Next, state officials can file their official complaints about the plan. The final deci sion, however, lies with the MMS, because the reef is federal property. While the government and people of the state of North Carolina have little direct influ ence on the decision, both must exercise the opportunities to voice their concern. The North Carolina site is one of several which Mobil wishes to search, so let them go elsewhere. The historic Outer Banks and its wildlife are too valuable to place in any kind of jeopardy. The public should rally in large numbers to oppose the drilling. Let's make sure the terms "Tar Heel" and "Graveyard of the Atlantic don't take on an entirely new meaning for North Carolina. James Burroughs The Daily Tar Heel Editorial Writers: James Burroughs and Jennifer Wing. Assistant Editors: Jessica Yates, arts; Jessica Lanning, city; Myrna Miller, features; Staci Cox, managing; Anne Isenhower and Steve Wilson, news; Lisa Reichle and Richard Smith, Omnibus; Andrew Podolsky, Jay Reed and Jamie Rosenberg, sports; Karen Dunn, state and national; Will Spears and Amy Wajda, university; Writers: Craig Allen, Kari Barlow, Crystal Bernstein, Sarah Cagle, Brenda Campbell, Terri Canaday, James Coblin, Blake Dickinson, Mark Folk, Julie Gammill, Jada Harris, Joey Hill, Susan Holdsclaw, Jason Kelly, Lloyd Lagos, Tracy Lawson, Rheta Logan, Jeff Lutrell, Alan Martin, Kimberly Maxwell, Helle Nielsen, Glenn O'Neal, Simone Pam, Gus Papas, Tom Parks, Jannette Pippin, Karl Pfister, Mike Sutton, Laura Taylor, Emilie Van Poucke, Stephanie von Isenburg, Sandy Wall, Sherry Waters, Chuck Williams, Nancy Wykle and Faith Wynn. Sports: Neil Amato, Mark Anderson, Jason Bates, John Bland, Christina Frohock, Scott Gold, Doug Hoogervorst, David Kupstas, Bethany Litton, Bobby McCroskey, Natalie Sekicky and Eric Wagnon. Arts and Features: Cheryl Allen, Lisa Antonucci, Randy Basinger, Clark Benbow, Ashley Campbell, Diana Florence, Carrie McLaren, Elizabeth Murray, Leigh Pressley, Hasan thika Sirisena and Kim Stallings. Photography: Evan Eile, Steven Exum, Regina Holder, Tracey Langhome and Kathy Michel. Copy Editors: B Buckberry, Joy Golden, Angela Hill, Susan Holdsclaw and Clare Weickert. Editorial Assistant: Mark Chilton. Design Assistants: Kim Avetta and Melanie Black. Cartoonists: Jeff Christian, Pete Corson, David Estoye and Mike Sutton. Business and Advertising: Kevin Schwartz, director; Patricia Glance, advertising director; Leslie Humphrey, classified ad manager; Kirsten Burkart, assistant classified ad manager; Amanda Tilley, advertising manager; Sabrina Goodson, business manager; Allison Ashworth, assistant business manager; Lora Gay, Kristi Greeson, Beth Harding, Lavonne Leinster, Tracy Proctor, Kevin Rcperowitz, Alicia Satterwhite, Pam Thompson and Jill Whitley, display advertising representa tives; Kim Blass, creative director; Pam Strickland, marketing director; Sherrie Davis, Ingrid Jones, Shannon Kelly and Tammy Newton, sales assistants; Jeff Carlson, office manager. Subscriptions: Ken Murphy, manager. Distribution: RDS Carriers. Production: Bill Leslie and Stacy Wynn, managers; Anita Bentley, assistant manager; Stephanie Locklear, assistant. Printing: The Village Companies. Playboy ad better than self-censorship To the editor: For three years now I have sat back in a state of detached be musement as various issues were debated, protested and flung across this campus. At this point I feel compelled to dismount my very high horse and inject myself mto the fracas. With regard to the now-infa mous Playboy ad (DTH, Sept. 8), I must come to the defense of the DTH. The question here should not be one of taste or even of morality, but one of rights. Play boy has the right to exist and to promote itself, the DTH has the right to publish ads that are not misleading and that do not pro mote illegal activities, and any one certainly has the right to voice their opinion on the matter. The First Amendment unfortu nately does not set a clear defini tion of what constitutes "free speech." The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. To the best of my knowledge the Supreme Court has not up to now denied any of the rights I men tioned above. Of course you may not agree with the Supreme Court. You also have the right to mobi lize and change the system. But until you do so all of these rights must stand. You may say that a publication representative of this University should not promote sexist litera ture. The purpose of the press in this society, however, is not to present the ideas of the majority but to reflect the broadest possible range of views. Where else, I ask you, should the priniciples of a free press stand firm if not at a public institution of higher educa tion? Those responsible for ac cepting or rejecting ads at the DTH should not be made to follow any standards other than those that are law. And in response to Tracy Smith's letter ("DTH irrespnsible to run Playboy ad," Sept. 12), advertisers should not just try to reach a majority audience in the interests of sound marketing. They would be much wiser, rather, to try to reach a specific audience. Playboy has clearly targeted a large and valid portion of the DTH's readership. You simply cannot sell to everyone. So, call me an absolutist or a traitor to my gender if you will. Censorship is censorship and self censorship is about the most in sidious form of it you can get. LILLA M. HOWLE Journalismhistory Senior Business, not First Amendment, at issue To the editor: In "the last word" section of the Sept. 12 DTH, editor Sharon Kebschull defended the inclusion of a Playboy ad in last Friday's paper by wrapping herself tightly in the First Amendment and talk ing grandly of the "marketplace of ideas." While Ms. Kebschull says she personally dislikes Playboy, she explains that "First Amendment issues are always sticky." She concludes by saying she is glad people are talking about the issue because "that, after all, is what the marketplace of ideas is all about." As a longtime journalist cur rently enrolled in law school, I am disturbed by Ms. Kebschull's apparent confusion between purely private business decisions and genuine First Amendment concerns. By so doing, she inad vertently does harm to that pre cious freedom of the press about which we both care so deeply. The First Amendment says, in part: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The key word here is Congress, i.e., state action. In other words, the government cannot tell you what to print or not to print, or which ads to accept and which to reject. The former is an editorial judgment, the latter a business decision. The Daily Tar Heel has the right to accept or reject any ad it pleases, according to the rules it sets for itself. The newspaper's readership will then be the final judge as to whether the newspa per has judiciously exercised its discretion. As for the "marketplace of ideas" theory, if the Daily Tar Heel is concerned about women's issues, and wants to generate dis cussion, there are plenty of topics worth exploring in its news pages. There is no need to get people talking by including an ad from Playboy magazine. The bottom line is this: The Daily Tar Heel made a business decision by accepting Playboy's ad. In return for inserting the full color advertisement in the news paper, the Daily Tar Heel received money. The First Amendment was not involved in that decision, and it should not now be trotted out to justify what many people on campus believe to have been the wrong decision. SETH COHEN Graduate Law Protest only draws more attention to ad To the editor: I never dreamed that my first letter to the editor would be in support of the insert of a Playboy ad in the newspaper. I do not support the magazine's degrad ing image of women. When I opened the newspaper on Sept. 8, I also was surprised and even a little offended to see the ad, but what I did next is what makes the difference: I tore the ad in half, threw it away, and simply contin ued to read the DTH as I have almost every day since I started classes last fall. I did not post the ad on my bulletin board so I could look at it and brood over the type of sexist mind that enjoys such a publication. I did not run across campus denouncing the ad and drawing the attention of people who glanced at the ad and threw it away like myself. In reading the outraged re sponses in the letters to the editor over the past few days, I have decided that I agree with Sharon Kebschull's decision to stand her ground and not apologize for her ad department's choice of adver tisement. If someone finds adver tisements or art or anything else offensive, the most just choice is not to deprive some one else of their expression or enjoyment but simply to ignore it. I am proud to be a woman, but I do not feel that I have to defend by sex's capabili ties because of a ridiculous magazine. am sure of my and every other woman's enormous capacity to succeed. Others will just have to wait and find out the inevitable. A Playboy ad is not going to deter me from proving myself. KATHARINE PARKER Political scienceEnglish Sophomore Protesters' demands unfair, not realistic To the editor: I happened to notice a man who did stop and talk at the table set up by the people angry over the DTH's Playboy ad. The man said that he agreed that the ad was sexist but he objected to the way that this group was protesting. They suggest that people should "petition the DTH to donate ad proceeds to a local women's or ganization." Does this mean that an anti-abortion group should ask that proceeds from an abortion clinic ad go to a local children's fund? Should the proceeds from a fast-food ad go to a local animal rights group? The issue I'm pre senting is where will it stop? We have advertising directors and editors to decide what ads go in the DTH. Maybe you think they used poor judgment, maybe not. The fact is, however, that the ad was "legitimate" according to DTH policy. People do have the right to protest if they feel it was sexist or if they want to try to redefine DTH advertising policy, but not the way they are doing it. They can write articles to the paper, speak out against the ad in the Pit andor hand out fliers suggesting that people shouldn't buy the magazine and why. But to ask the DTH to give the proceeds to a local women's group is wrong. MARYLIN KEATING Political Science Junior Offensive ads better than the alternative To the editor: All of us who have witnessed the growing movement for cen sorship, on both the right and the left, applaud an editor who does not bow so easily to groups that appoint themselves as both jury and judge of what counts as sexism on this campus. These two groups that are so upset about the Sept. 8 Playboy ad evidently failed high school civics. Because if they hadn't, they would realize that just because something is offensive to you does not automatically give you the right to censor it. I'm sorry the First Amendment sometimes allows "offensiveness" in its op eration, but I'll take offensiveness over the alternative any day. Also, I would like to give these two groups some rather pragmatic advice. In light of this summer's ruling on abortion, don't you think that fighting for pro-choice is a great deal more important than some dumb ad? All this needless, narcissistic grandstanding about Playboy ads is simply mindless. It makes your groups look extrem ist, and it alienates many people who would support feminists on other issues. So take it from a "good liberal:" Quit bullying the DTH, leave the First Amendment alone, and go do something more important and more pressing. LEON LOWDER Senior Philosophyhistory
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Sept. 14, 1989, edition 1
10
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75