Page 6


Peyton McKnight, Tyler, presidential pledge unknown.” Delegates in the Democratic Party have just as much right to be for Humphrey or Wallace as they do to be for McGovern. But delegates have just as much right to be for McGovern as they do for Wallace or Humphrey, too. Orr’s committee strongly suggests a stacked deck against McGovern. Despite the improvements embodied in the McGovern Commission rules adopted by the 1968 convention at Chicago, credentials committees still have significant residual power to shape the composition conventions by rulings on who will and who will not be seated as delegates. This fact, in combination with Orr’s repeatedly exhibited contempt for the new rules, spells trouble for June 13. Let us hope that each duly elected delegate is seated and every one of the reformed rules is honored. Let us also hope nobody at the convention will have already decided to vote for Nixon or to work secretly with Connally, who has already said that he will vote for Nixon and that it is “entirely possible” he will campaign for him. There are four components, each one equally necessary, to prevent a disaster at opposition to John Connally and all his co-conspirators, who still fake being cooperation among the Humphrey, McGovern and uncommitted delegates in enforcing all fair, mutual respect for the rights of all properly elected delegates, especially those whose rights are the most endangered by the situation, the McGovern delegates. want to vote against Nixon in the fall that the discretionary decisions of the convention proportionally represent the presidential preferences represented at the convention. In short, the labor people who are for Humphrey and against McGovern must get off their high horses and see that they are the trouble, not the McGovern-Kennedy people. If labor wants a broken party and Nixon again that’s what they’ll get. R.D. 8 The Texas Observer #ripitz’ Since 1866 The Place in Austin GOOD FOOD GOOD BEER 1607 San Jacinto 477-4171 Austin Herein we will deal with what 2,149 readers had to say about the content of the Observer when they returned questionnaires that appeared in our Nov. 19, 1971, issue. Answers concerning readers were in the May 12 Observer. Since this installment concerns our turf editing and writing we are giving ourselves equal time, well, more than equal time, to respond to readers’ criticisms. The survey asked what you would like to see more of. Any number of categories could be checked, which explains why the percentages add up to 302. We didn’t need a survey to determine what the first and second place winners would be: 33 At least during this presidential year, Observer readers should be getting all the political reportage and analysis they can tolerate. We’re budgeted for mostly 24-page issues; so there should be no space traumas. Muckraking is K.N.’s favorite pasttime and she will rake as much as she can find. We’ve started a new department called “In Review.” It is edited by Steve Barthelme and it will include most anything Steve sees fit to print, mainly reviews of books and periodicals, cultural items \(put a very broad connotation on bizarre. Agratifying 38 percent of you Observer writers are “just right.” “Too biased” was next with 19 percent \(more with 16 percent. Another 15 percent were critical write-ins, 13 percent complimentary write-ins. “Fishwives” got 4 percent and “excessively somber,” 3 percent. Some of the write-ins included a computer technician who thinks we are “just right fishwives” and a bartender who says we are “a bit righteous.” Others said Observer writers are “too conservative,” “bleeding hearts,” “too Austin oriented,” “too overly women’s lib,” “sometimes lack spirit,” “more-liberal-than-thou,” “far out,” “slipping,” “always-anti,” and “excessively vindictive.” No doubt we are too Austin oriented. There are only two full-time editorial people on the Observer, Molly Ivins and Kaye Northcott. When the Legislature is in session, we pretty well are captive in Austin. The rest of the time we try to travel as much as possible, our travel budget and not-new automobiles willing. We’ll try to do better. There were a few sexist comments in the surveys that raised our feminist ire. Somebody wrote, “You need a male editor.” And somebody else said, “You didn’t ask readers’ sex. I’m afraid you’ll have difficulty evaluating results without this information.” We can’t comprehend what sex has to do with editing or reading a political journal. For the most part, however, the distaff editorship of the Observer has not been an issue. Judging from the letters that come to the office, we suspect that most correspondents don’t have the slightest idea who the editors are. Every day, we receive letters beginning, “Dear Sir” or “Gentlemen.” “Too overly women’s lib” we may be, but in answering those letters we usually point out that not all editors are male. This is not a nitpicky thing. There is an assumption behind these “Dear Sir” letters that people in responsible positions naturally are men. Well, at least at the Observer this isn’t so, and a letter assuming that we are men probably is not going to get as sympathetic a response as a letter that begins, “To Whom It May Concern” or “Dear Editor” or “Friend” or “Fellow Human” or any other non-sexist salutation. ON BIAS. Let us begin by saying frankly that we are bored by this debate and tired of hearing “new journalists” talk about “new journalism” and we wish they’d just shut up and do it and leave the readers to decide if it’s any good. If you already know the premises in this debate, we recommend you skip this section of the letter. For those of you who have somehow miraculously escaped the endless discussion, we do want you to understand how we think of the news and how we try to treat it, so we will attempt a good faith presentation of our case here. We do not mean to condescend to you: we probably suffer from a form of professional provincialism that makes us think everybody must have thought about these questions as much as we have. O.K., at this point in time, almost everyone \(in now universally agreed that there is no such thing as objectivity: it is an impossibility. The question is whether it should stand as an Impossible Dream, something ever to strive toward, never to be arrived at. We not only think that objectivity is impossible, we also believe that it is a malignant concept. The more serious question, we believe, is what kind of standard one puts in its place. But the myth of objectivity is so pervasive, it has Dear Reader .