{ title: 'The Spectrum (Buffalo, N.Y.) 1955-current, September 21, 1979, Page 6, Image 6', download_links: [ { link: 'http://www.loc.gov/rss/ndnp/ndnp.xml', label: 'application/rss+xml', meta: 'News about NYS Historic Newspapers - RSS Feed', }, { link: '/lccn/np00130006/1979-09-21/ed-1/seq-6/png/', label: 'image/png', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00130006/1979-09-21/ed-1/seq-6.pdf', label: 'application/pdf', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00130006/1979-09-21/ed-1/seq-6/ocr.xml', label: 'application/xml', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00130006/1979-09-21/ed-1/seq-6/ocr.txt', label: 'text/plain', meta: '', }, ] }
Image provided by: University at Buffalo
i to editorial Whose freedom? The Spectrum currently finds Itself facing a question many publications are also grappling with—whether or not to uphold freedom of speech at the risk of offending a portion of our readers. Recently, the Village Voice (once the advocacy newspaper) faced dissension within its own ranks over the publication of an “objectionable” editorial cartoon in which the word “nigger” appeared. In later Issues, debate raged through the Voice’s pages by both staffers and readers. Those Voice staffers In disagreement with the cartoon’s critics shouted “thought police.” The critics shouted “racist.\ Nothing was resolved. Rightfully, the Voice will still not advocate censorship and, rightfully, those who are offended by published material still complain. Here at The Spectrum, we are not being criticized for printing “objectionable” editorial material—staff-written copy or artwork—but for the publication of certain ads deemed offensive by certain readers and staff. As Is stands now , The Spectrum advertising policy (made clear to advertisers) reads: “We reserve the right to reject any advertising at the discretion of both the Business Manager and the Edltor-in- Chlef.\ This year, we have only censored ads that we believe false or Illegal. This past summer, we ran an ad’in our pages for a bar—the ad’s content was interpreted by many as blatantly crude towards women—In the same issue, with an article about sexist advertising on the whole, Inciting an indignant reader to ask: “Don’t you read your own articles?” The bar continued Its practice. In the September 14,1979 issue of The Spectrum, Rootle’s Pump Room advertised a “Flesh Party” and announced “Meat over 1Q0 girls, Guys... this is your chance to some and get AHEAD .. What is dangerous? To the Editor; When is it dangerous and in what trustworthy way can we determine when It is dangerous, and is it sometimes so dangerous that we are better off ignorant? We would appreciate it if you clarified those remarks made In the editorial of the 17th. Thank you. We’re puzzled. The editorial of the 17th says, “It dannot be argued that information is dangerous. Information, when used improperly, can be dangerous ...\ It seems that the second sentence supplies the hint of a counterexample to the first. That is, you have supplied the framework from which to argue that information is dangerous (that is, It has the potential to do harm). This view seems all too similar to that of one who insists that it cannot be argued that guns are dangerous but admits that they can be dangerous if improperly used. By the first sentence above quoted do you only mean that information is not always dangerous? Perhaps, but this does not cut to the heart of the This time, dissent within our own ranks ensured and several editors were approached by readers appalled that their college newspaper would run an ad supporting the view of women as sexual objects. As a student newspaper, our Job is to inform students of news and events which directly and Indirectly affect them and, more importantly, to stimulate thought and debate at a University where such desires are often muted. Are we responsible to our readers’ sensibilities (and to which readers?), to our own moral conscience, or are we responsible for supporting freedom of the press—for ourselves as well as our advertisers? Terence O’Connel, Instructor and the Class of Philosophy 107 section C We would like to think we are an advocacy Journal. We would like to think we believe in causes that benefit our generation. We take the risk of being tagged ‘‘liberal” because the majority of our editorial board believe their Individual politics are so. Yet we have run military ads, ads that can be interpreted as sexist, and ads that can be interpreted as racist. Editor’s Note: Information in itself is not dangerous. Misused Information can be dangerous. The reason misuse of information is dangerous is that It is mistaken for proper use of information. Thus, what Is potentially dangerous is the acjtion of using or misusing information. I would argue that guns, unlike information, increase the potential for danger. Information increases the potential for safety and rationality. Information about guns decreases the potential danger of such weapons. Perhaps, this clarified a poorly-worded sentence. debate. In other words, anyone who might disagree with the conclusion of your editorial . could still very well admit that information is not always dangerous. So, we’re still puzzled. Admitting that information is sometimes dangerous (as you do) the question becomes: So we have yet to resolve this pressing question—where does our collective moral conscience tie? On the side of freedom of speech or behind censorship of offensive ads (possibly prohibiting ads that many of our readers don’t object to). We have argued that information Is not dangerous. But do we want to pay for our pages with “blood money?\ The Spectrum's editorial board will soon sit down and rationally debate this question of censorship or freedom. This Is not the first editorial board to do so. Two years ago, the then board members voted to overturn a previous and longheld ban on military ads. In a long and emotional session, the pros and cons of running sexist and racist ads were also debated. No doubt, whatever is decided by this year’s board will again be questioned by future editorial boards. It is to be expected and encouraged. The Spectrum Is made up of people with Intellects, consciences, and feelings. Often the practicalities of the newspaper’s day-to-day workings do not allow these qualities to blend or to reveal themselves to you. We constantly question ourselves and our decisions just as we constantly question those we write about. We think as one entity while trying to maintain our own Individiual stances. It Is a difficult task. Until we, as a collective board, decide on the status of our advertising policy, we can only ask of you one task—to follow your own conscience. Maintain your own individual stance. Do not patronize those businesses whose advertising policies you feel are offensive. That is your freedom of choice. Plxaedrus by Robert G. Basil holistic spirituality, is in no way comparable to or compatible with Christian dogma and the faith required to follow it. In fact, of the one-half billion adherents to the Buddhist philosophy (really not a religion at all) only about six million are Tibetan Buddhists. This esoteric and ritualistic strain of Buddhist thought, practiced in the Himalayan mountain range in Nepal, Bhutan and Tibet, is for the most part regarded as heretical by the rest of the Buddhist world. So obviously the Lama—misquoted, misrepresented or not—has no authority to speak for the worldwide Buddhist community which neither has nor needs a leader. No doubt the media are aware of this point. But who cares? It’s not their point. When the Dalai Lama visited the U.S. this month, “objectivity” In our country’s media went out to lunch, as usual. The Tibetan spirtiual leader’s trip here, the first ever of its Kind, has been politically manhandled and manipulated by a national press as unfair and as warped as any other In the world, \free” or otherwise. Those hallowed purveyors of good ole American reporting, especially the New York Times and Time Magazine, rejected the possibility of using the Lama’s visit as a chance to explain an Eastern culture to their readership, and opted instead to exploit it as a vehicle voicing the political and cultural doctrines of the United States. This sadly is not surprising. These journals of supposed impartial writing are so often merely the arms of State Department ideology and our nation’s shallow popular culture. The Spectrum Vd, 30, No. 16 Friday, 21 September 1979 In order to reinforce the structure of narrow- minded Western values, our press chose to purposely shroud Buddhism in contradiction and myth, even though the most Important ideas of the philosophy are easily accessible and understood; and America would definitely do well to think about them. Editor-In-Chief Daniel S. Parker Managing Editor Joyce Howe Managing Editor News Editor Kathleen McDonough Elena Cacavas, In the case of the Lama’s visit, the mistreatment was twofold: a chance to malign (as always) the political policies of China and its continuing “cultural revolution;” and to stupidly and (no kidding) unfavorably compare “our\ Christianity with \thelr“ Buddhism, which in fact, really Isn’t Buddhism at all. Art Director . . Rebecca Bernstein Feature .... Jon-Michael Glionna Campus Mark Meltzer Assistant vacant .... Joe Simon Graphics Dennis Qoris .Paul Maggiotto National Robbie Cohen vacant Assistant venant' . . Robert G. Basil Photo Garry F a-ivu> . Tom Buchanan Assistant vacant .Cathy Carlson Sports Carlos Vallarino . Dave Davidson Prodigal Sun vacant Arts. . .Marc Sherman Music. Businas* Manager Bill Finkelstein Similarly, Time magazine studiously devotes its pattern of noncomprehension to the Tibetan Buddhist movement in the United States, lazily generalizing that, ''many people 30 and younger are drawn to Oriental religions that explore Inner spiritual resources”—as If Eastern philosophy were but a youthful fad. In fact, an entire college, the prestigious Naropa institute of Boulder Colorado, is devoted to Tibetan studies and research, along with an Eastern approach to other disciplines. Renowned poet Allen Ginsburg, well above 30, is a member of the Poetics faculty there. City Assistant Contributing. .- Education. . . Environmental In a prominently placed article last week, for example, a Times headline blared something like Buddhist Leader Says East Can Learn From Christianity. Many Buddhists, the Lama was quoted as saying, are lacking a certain “practicality\ supposedly' found in Christian action. But this statement was assuredly offered to diplomatically offset the many criticisms he directed towards the emptiness and expedienceof American life. These other statements were found, of course, ambiguously paraphrased towards the end of the article. And Time magainze printed the Lama’s doubtlessly out of context quote that \all great religions are basically the same.\ Buddhism, with Its nonthelstlc doctrines espousing a gentlei Ralph Allen Tim Switala The Spectrum is served by College Press Service, Field Newspaper Syn- dicate, Los Angeles Times Syndicate, Collegiate Headlines Service and Pacific News Service. The Spectrum is represented for national advertis- ing by Communications and Advertising Services to Students, Inc. Circulation average: 15,000 So far, the only acceptable treatment of the Lama and the culture he embodies is in that dependable bastion of in-depth Journalism, Rolling Stone. This magazine, of course, has a hefty advantage: It doesn't count on government allied corporation for Its advertising. Stereo and record manufacturers, it would seem, believe that they could thrive any religious system. The Spectrum offices are located in 355 Squire Hall, State University of New York at Buffalo, 3435 Main Street, Buffalo, New York 14214. Telephone: (7161 831-5455, editorial; (716) 831-5419, business. Copyright 1979 Buffalo, N.Y. The Spectrum Student Periodical, Inc. Editorial policy is determined by the Editor-in-Chiaf. Republication of any matter herein without the express consent of the Editor-in-Chisf is strict- ly forbidden. . , \
