ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1995, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, December 31, 1995 TAG: 9512290119
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: F2 EDITION: METRO
TYPE: LETTERS
HOW IS IT that the big corporations of today are able to buy up our news stations - for example, CBS? Not only do the corporations own the news broadcasting companies, but they also edit what the stations are allowed to air.
Recently Mike Wallace of CBS was to do a report on "60 Minutes" which included a taped interview with a former smoking executive who attacked the tobacco industry. Wallace's story was cut because of advice from the network lawyers. The anonymous executive had a nondisclosure contract with his old company, and CBS might have been sued if the story were aired.
I do not understand why we the citizens cannot get the news because all of the news professionals are afraid of being sued. The cigarette companies have it all figured out. The second a station does a study on cigarettes and finds some incriminating evidence, the cigarette companies threaten to sue.
In my opinion, the networks need to fight back. Perhaps they ought to start suing the cigarette companies for taking away their First Amendment rights. ROB CROW FERRUM
Nothing new in Marye's mushiness
MADISON MARYE'S quote in the December 16 editorial, "Marye's smart-road mushiness," reflects the same mushy-mouthed, nonsensical or incorrect statements he made during his most recent campaign.
Your editorial also stated that "Marye's occasional twists of tongue were unfairly used against him by his political opponent." Not true. I attended each of the candidate forums. There isn't enough space in your paper to print all the incorrect statements made by Marye. I witnessed numerous so-called Marye "twists of the tongue," of which Pat Cupp was fully aware but let slide because he didn't want to embarrass Marye.
Had The Roanoke Times done its homework concerning our legislative candidates, it would have endorsed Cupp. If the voters had done their homework, more would have voted for Cupp. CAROLYN GREEN BLACKSBURG
No solutions, just shibboleths
AS I read your December 11 editorial, "Disconnect the jerks," dealing with scams against the elderly, I was fascinated by how similar the con artists' approach of intimidating and scaring the elderly was to the current demagoguery practiced by President Clinton, Democratic Party leaders and liberal editorial staffs such as yours when referring to the Republican congressional budget proposals.
Phrases like gutting Medicare, Draconian cuts, tax breaks for the rich, budget cuts hitting the working classes, Medicaid disaster - without any explanation of their meaning - cannot lead to a common-sense approach to grappling with the budget (government spending) dilemma.
Whom do you define as being rich or well off? Is it someone earning enough money to be required to file an income tax form?
Whom do you define as the poor? Is it someone receiving AFDC, food stamps, Medicaid, housing, nutrition assistance, and energy assistance to a combined income level of more than double or triple someone working a full-time job just over the minimum wage?
You acknowledge the need for entitlement reforms but offer no constructive dialogue toward a solution - only repeating shibboleths. MAXWELL J. DYETT MONETA
Are U.S. troops being set up?
THIS NATION seems to have traded the Berlin Wall for the Balkan Wall. U.S. troops will be headquartered at Tuzla, 40 to 60 miles from Sarajevo and Gorrije Vakuf, where the British and the French troops are stationed. The main road between Tuzla and Sarajevo runs for 20 or more miles right along Serb lines, though the Serbs are supposed to withdraw less than 10 miles away.
The U.S. sector plans to be supplied along a railway from Hungary passing through Croatia, plus 20 miles through Bosnian Serb territory once U.S. troops are in place and if things fall through with the Serbs.
What if the Serbs try to eat the U.S. supply route through their territory and block the road from Tuzla to Sarajevo to prevent reinforcement from British and French troops? If they succeed, our troops could be fighting the 1st Armored Division's Last Stand at Tuzla.
I cannot understand how 20,000 troops can be expected to protect themselves effectively and cover hundreds of miles of confrontation lines. If the Clinton administration is sending these troops to fight, 20,000 is not enough. If these 20,000 are to die for some moral or political reason, 20,000 are too many.
I feel all sides over there cannot be trusted. They are all alike in regard to their blood thirst. The situation over there could blow up into a two-, three- or four-way fight with 100,000 or more on each side. Our 20,000 may wind up in an impossible position. BOB B. HUNDLEY EAGLE ROCK
LENGTH: Medium: 89 linesby CNB