Dick Haws hit the nail right on the head in his “In My View” column in Monday’s Daily.

The GSB, Faculty Senate and other governing bodies need to take a serious look into the periodical distribution policy for this campus.

I don’t have any bold solutions at this time, but something Haws wrote sums up the problem.

“Those student periodicals that operate on shoestrings and foreswear any university affiliation will likely cease to exist because the new policy will mean an increase in both their costs and the hurdles they’ll have to overcome to publish,” he wrote.

It’s important to make things as easy as possible for campus publications to operate. Granted, I’m somewhat biased here because I write for the Drummer, but it goes beyond that. I’d like to see as many campus publications as possible. Freedom of speech and the press is best served through a diverse press. On the news, lifestyles, and sports front, the Daily needs more competition. Man cannot live on the Daily alone.

If the university represents society on a micro level, then small media is necessary to bring us not only all the news and analysis that’s FIT to print (New York Times), but also the news and analysis that’s UNFIT to print as well.

History and the present are filled with stories that are unfit to print in the major media. Keep in mind that the major media are vast news-gathering organizations with correspondents and stringers around the globe. AP, for example, has 100 reporters in Washington, D.C., alone.

Despite these vast resources, many big stories are broken by small publications with a fraction of the staff available to the big media conglomerates.

For example, the news that the CIA was funding cultural, academic, and student organizations was first publicized by the now defunct Ramparts magazine. Ralph Nader’s revelations about unsafe automobiles were ignored by the mainstream press so they first began appearing in the Nation.

“Stories about hunger in America, the chemical poisoning of our environment, the CIA’s involvement in the drug trade, the obstructionist use of the veto by the United States at the United Nations, the repeated violation of our civil liberties by government security agencies, including the FBI, the massive corruption and criminal conspiracies behind the savings and loan scandal, the ferocious wars of counterinsurgency and death-squad terrorism sponsored by the United States in Central America and elsewhere and other such revelations were uncovered by poorly financed radical publications or other small media long before they were picked up — if ever — by the major news organizations,” writes Michael Parenti, in his book “Inventing Reality: The Politics of News Media.”

Most reporters who end up on national television are dedicated conformists. But wouldn’t it be great if Clinton and Dole had to answer some really tough questions? Wouldn’t it be great if other presidential candidates were allowed in the debates? The answer is a resounding yes to both questions.

I’ve only watched about five minutes of the presidential debates before I got tired of the softball questions from Jim Lehrer. I mean, Lehrer is second to only Larry King and Barbara Walters in the softball question department.

Here’s a few questions some independent-minded journalists said they would ask if they had a chance. Someone please wake me up when questions like these are asked on national TV.

“The General Accounting Office reports that college tuition has increased 234 percent over the past 15 years, while income has risen just 82 percent and inflation 74 percent. Higher education is increasingly funded by students, not our society. Why is this trend occurring, and what will you do to reverse it?” —Jay Bonasia, director of the National Student News Service.

“As you know, federal tax policy has been redistributing wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. What would you do about it?” —John Hess, ex-reporter for the New York Times.

“The Congressional Budget Office says that Congress should cut federal spending sharply by denying the mortgage-interest deduction to the wealthiest Americans. Limiting the deduction to loans of no more than $300,000 would save $34.8 billion in just five years. Should middle-class homeowners and renters who can’t afford to buy a house in the first place continue to subsidize mortgage-interest deductions for buyers of the most expensive homes?” — Morton Mintz, former Washington Post reporter.

“Both parties have presented ‘family values’ as a cornerstone of the ’96 campaign. While corporations have swelled investor dividends by downsizing and moving jobs overseas, the bottom line for working families is sinking. Millions of Americans work more than one job — which leaves little time for family — and still live near the poverty line. What kind of accountability should U.S.-based corporations have to American workers and their families? What role would you play as president in holding them accountable?” — Patrice O’Neill, executive producer of “We Do the Work” on public television.

A steady onslaught of questions like these would be a nightmare for Clinton and Dole. But they need not worry about questions like these. In the narrow world of big-name journalism, these questions are taboo.

---

Andrew Chebuhar is a senior in journalism and mass communication from Muscatine.