PERFECTION
continued from page 2
Well, the discussion which fol
lowed seemed to end with one an
swer. The media has a very
large and wide-ranging effect,
and the effect of television is
even larger and more wide-rang
ing. Television is the most
dynamic form of the media and
I feel I can safely say that it
reaches more people than the
written media. So what am I
leading up to? It is this--
law see where it is possible
that out whole country could
be led by controlling what is
seen and heard on television,
provided that the things being
put forward are nor too prepos
terous or too radical so as to
be immediately identifiable as
an attempt to draw the public.
Now you might say that what I
am proposing is nonsense and
cannot happen in a free country.
Hopefully this is true, but I
fear it is not. In the past
there have been executives of
great papers who have been
quoted as saying that their
particular publication could
make or break a person (usu
ally a political candidate),
could.create a cause or a sit
uation, could in effect lead
the public. And if all this
can be done with a less effect
ive media than television, ima
gine what could be done through
the use of television. Another
example of the television media's
dynamic power can be found in
the field of politics. I remem
ber reading or hearing about a
particular election in which a
one-time astronaut who had turned
to politics was running against
a well-to-do but not very well
known businessman. Polls taken
a while before the election
showed a definite lead was held
by the astronaut and yet in the
end after a massive television
campaign, the businessman won.
He was sold to the public at
15, 30, and 60 second inter
vals much the same as soap, cars,
and 18-hour girdles, Ido not
want to convey the impression
that he was the wrong man for
the job--I am not in a posi
tion to say. I preferred the
other candidate—the election
took place far from me and was
related to me, perhaps to the
detriment of my argument, by
a form of the media. Still the
point I wish to make is that
the public is too easily led.
What I would like to see is a
more aware, a more conscien
tious, a more objective public.
"Well and nice," you sayi,"so
would everybody else." I say
not everybody, because almost
everybody doesn't care. Have
you ever walked into a per
son's house and found it with
almost every itemoyou've seen
advertised on television?
This has happened to me
more than once and I have
been appalled at the money
that must have been wasted.
While working at a super
market in the past I have
watched as the masses bear
down upon the latest gimmick
advertized even if its pos
sible use was of question
able nature and not much later
seen it lying upon the side of
the road disgarded. Now you
might say "Why then hasn't
the country gone down the
drain if this gloomy picture
I paint is true?" The reason,
I feel, is this: Thankfully,
most programming as put on
television is of its own ob
jective nature. I have found
for the most part that the
press holds an objective na
ture for the very reason that
it realizes the power it has
and as a matter of fact is very
proud of its objectivity--
and perhaps rightly so. I
use the word press to describe
those whose input makes the
media, for I know of no other
title and I use the word media
basically in reference to-tel
evision, without excluding all
the other media.
Because the press is aware,
conscientious and objective, it
is not an excuse for us not to
be. The other day a television
announcer was attacking in a
commentary certain increased
spending policies ofta very un
popular institution, the defense
department. He stated that pre
sent spending on weapons was
sufficient; no additional
spending should be needed over
and above last year's level.
I would have agreed with him
wholeheartedly but for one fact
the increased spending was not
for weapons. Rather it was for
veteran benefits. I became
aware of this fact previous to
this commentary in a newspaper
which had done a study of bud
get spending in government.
What I am attempting to show
Highacres Collegian, May 7, 1974-Page Three
is that television is not in
fallible. It is an instrument
of man and is only as perfect
as the man or his argument.
Television is not knowledgable,
is not aware, is not objective,
it is only as good as the man/
men behind it. So. let's re-
member this: accept it for its
benefits, but be aware of its
limitations. This goes for
all forms of the media, even
that which is written here.
Out of the night, under stars
bright,
Dashes the streaker, quick
footed and light.
Dancing and laughing, full of
gay mirth,
Wearing the clothes of the day
of his birth.
Seeing his fans, he slows and
he waves
Like an old master, greeting
his slaves.
He runs and leaps, whirling in
air
Doing his ballet without a care.
Circling the dorm, he runs
around twice
A true phenomenon, fearing
men nor mice.
But alas, he realizes, it's
time to go
For security is coming, and the
wind's begun to blow.
He turns to the crowd, and with
a brave smile
Seems to be saying, "I'll be
back in a while."
Security has arrived, and it's
he that they'll get
So the brave little streaker
streaks into sunset.
Farewell to thee, my streaker
friend,
You have my love until the end.
Until the sun has ceased to shine
Then, only, then, will you
cease t, bi
ODE TO
A STREAKER
by Maria Rovito