To the Editor: James Reston's Oct. 18 column en titled "Let the Buyer Beware" might more appropriately be entitled "Let the Reader Beware." While I recognize the "tongue‐in‐cheek" tone of the arti cle, it nonetheless reflects a considera ble misunderstanding of the political broadcasting bill which the President vetoed.
It is probably only coincidental that Mr. Reston, a noted journalist of the printed media, seems to suggest that the only kind of objectionable political advertising can occur on television; by implication, at least, newspaper ad vertising could not be similarly mis leading or excessive.
It is certainly not a, fact that only television advertising can be abused. It is a fact, however, that if television advertising were limited by statute, candidates would perhaps resort to a greater use of the printed media.
If Mr. Reston is so indignant over the use of television as a means for candidates and officeholders to com municate with the electorate, should he not look at the entire problem of campaign advertising and financing, as the President has recommended?
Another failure of the legislation which Mr. Reston ignores is that the bill would have limited funds spent on behalf of a candidate — not funds spent in opposition to a candidate. Moreover, there are enough loopholes in the bill to drive a truck through. Those who would conscientiously abide by the law would be penalized in cam paigns against those candidates who decided to flout the law.
In a number of other respects, Mr. Reston's column is indeed, like the political TV advertising he deplores, quite misleading. He suggests that we may be "forced by the President to put television advertising on the same footing as commercial advertising." The fact is that the bill the President vetoed would have required that broad casters charge the exact same rates to candidates that they charge to com mercial advertisers regardless of eco nomic consequences.
Political advertising interrupts regu larly scheduled commercial broadcasts and has traditionally been more costly to broadcasters. It is not the Presi dent's veto, therefore, that puts TV political advertising on the same foot ing as commercial advertising. Quite to the contrary — the bill in a very mis guided way would have done just that. It would have been rate‐setting by legislation, a very unfortunate preced ent which Congress has wisely avoided in the past.
Mr. Reston further implies — quite erroneously — that the President prof ited politically by vetoing the bill if the President runs in 1972, he would, as an incumbent, be benefited by the restriction placed upon the amount of money that his opponent might spend — an opponent who would not likely have had the same TV exposure as the President.
Further, the two examples cited by Mr. Reston involving Republican Sena tors Ralph Smith and George Murphy of California and the President's ef forts to give them "visibility" have nothing whatsoever to do with this legislation. Mr. Reston might more ap propriately have cited the example of two relatively unknown candidates who through vast amounts of advertis ing on television won significant pri maries in this fall's election — Richard Ottinger of New York and Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio — both of them Democrats.
The serious problem of campaign financing must be viewed as a whole. A piecemeal approach which regulates one element of the press and not an other is not only discriminatory but provides no solution at all.
While Mr. Reston's column might have provided a good chuckle for The Times's readers Sunday, it did very little to enlighten them on a serious problem.
To the Editor: James J. Harford's Oct. 10 letter defending the SST is so full of mis leading statements that it is difficult to answer. A few examples suffice.
Who has conducted "conservative market projection"? Economists in the Federal Aviation Administration, that prime example of an agency that pro motes the commercial interests of the groups it is supposed to regulate.
Finally, the outrageous statement that "without exception now, qualified scientists agree that the SST's effect on moisture content, ozone and pollu tion of the atmosphere will be trivial." Are Russell Train and Dr. Gordon J. F. Macdonald of the White House Council on Environmental Quality not quali fied? Or the scientists who met under M.I.T. sponsorship at Williamstown this summer?
Disinterested experts, as contrasted with those emotionally or financially committed to "aviation progress," show a surprising degree of unanimity in declaring the SST to be an environ mental threat and, very likely, an eco nomic disaster.
To the Editor: The Oct. 15 issue of The Times carried a list of persons who, in the opinion of the House Internal Security Committee (formerly known as the House Un‐American Activities Com mittee), are "radicals" who have lec tured on American campuses.
In the news article appearing with the list, your reporter noted that Representative Richard H. Ichord took full advantage of his Congressional immunity when he released the list in the face of a Federal District Court temporary restraining order.
Your reporter pointed out that some of those listed are "not generally con sidered extremists." Among those he included in this category was our dis tinguished friend and colleague, John C. Bennett, president emeritus of Union Theological Seminary, whose action which led to this inclusion on the list was his participation in the Committee to Abolish the House Un‐ American Activities Committee.
We write not to defend John C. Bennett, nor to suggest that he is any more victimized by the publica tion of this list than others whose names are included. The very exist ence of such a list is objectionable, the more so because of the long‐time lack of discernment by the House Un‐ American Activities Committee.
The confusion of dissent with "Unȁ Americanism" which characterized that committee has obviously carried over to its successor, the House In ternal Security Committee. A large number of those persons included in this new list are Americans of integ rity and moral discernment.
However, for persons who may not be familiar with John C. Bennett's distinguished public record, we wish to express our gratitude for his long standing efforts toward the formation and extension of a responsible public conscience in this society. To say that he is "not generally considered ex tremist" hardly goes far enough. With out exception, his energies have been directed to combining an honest rec ognition of profound injustices in this society and an acute awareness of the degree of irresponsibility in the uses of public power with an analytic stance conspicuous for its moderation.
Knowing him, we are sure that he is not offended by the inclusion of his name on this list of so‐called "radicals." But a few of us among the many who claim him as friend and teacher wish to make clear our conviction that a real threat to "in ternal security" is represented by Government agencies which direct their energies toward discrediting citizens of his caliber.
To the Editor: I think that many of your readers were a little surprised that you missed the real tragedy in "The Angela Davis Tragedy" editorial of Oct. 16.
Aside from the platitudinous tone of the editorial, the real tragedy of this situation is that Angela Davis is behind bars while Herbert Marcuse walks about freely. And like so many other university professors today, continuing to indoctrinate young, immature, and overly emotional minds with a mis guided revolutionary philosophy.
To the Editor: Your editorial of Oct. 19, endors ing Representative Peter Rodino Jr.'s (Tenth District) opponent on the grounds Representative Rodino failed to speak out against corruption in Newark was, in my opinion, unfair and unjust. A man running for office must be judged on his record, programs and integrity.
The Governor's Select Commission on Civil Disorder recommended the convening of a special grand jury to investigate the allegations of "a per vasive feeling of corruption" in the City of Newark. The purpose of that recommendation was to initiate action within the procedures of law and not strike at the innocent or call for public statements of condemnation by those in public office.
In my judgment, for Representative Rodino, a ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, to have publicly commented on the local inves tigation and subsequent Federal trial of Newark city officials would have been grossly improper. The Code of Professional Responsibility and the rules enunciated by the New Jersey Supreme Court would restrict such comments, and properly so. In fact, you are censuring Representative Ro dino for adherence to appropriate con duct in a pending case.
What is more, in basing your decision on this one criterion, you provide for your readers an inadequate standard by which to measure the merits of the candidates in the Tenth Congressional District. Mr. Rodino has a long and consistent record in the fight against organized crime and corruption.
He was instrumental in npassing the antiracketeering statutes enacted in the Kennedy era, the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act, and the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. He is now engaged in a three — pronged program to attack the problem of narcotics in this country—to provide for some type of compulsory medical treatment of addicts; to dry up the source of supply in foreign countries; and to provide a new thrust in education and rehabili tation. His record in the areas of housing, welfare and environment pro tection is also highly constructive.
I believe that this record of per formance should have had major influ ence on an endorsement in The Times.
To the Editor: The young doctor‐nuvelist, Michael Crichton, writes well and is doubtless a better doctor than he would like to admit. But his article, "The Miseduca tion of Doctors" (Op. Ed. column, Oct. 16), is full of quick generalizations and dubious logic, and on balance is seriously misleading.
He mistakes major defects in our health care delivery system for short comings in medical education. The latter is far from perfect, but it does produce knowledgeable doctors.
A prime objective is to develop crit ical judgment. That there is "a nasty side effect" in the form of "a dehuman izing influence" is largely nonsense and, in any case, bright medical stu dents are not that easily influenced.
Young physicians are no less human than they ever were; who but they man the jammed hospital emergency rooms and outpatient clinics of our large urban centers? The bedside man ner is appealing, but unless backed by an understanding of physiology and pathology and pharmacology and the behavioral sciences, it is nothing.
As Dr. Crichton states, 70 per cent of patients seen in the practice of general medicine have no demonstrable illness, but the science of medicine, and the art too, lies in the early and reliable identification of those that do.
No, we still need rigorously educated physicians. We need more researchers, not fewer. But pressingly we need more trained assistants and an eco nomic framework in which they can function, to extend the effectiveness of our practicing physicians.
To the Editor: Several months ago, Premier Lon Not of Cambodia seized power in the typi cal junta manner. Now he has decreed his nation a "republic." Does a nation really blossom into a government of the people simply because its strong man and his retinue term it so?
It will take more than the usual grains of salt to accept so cynical a distortion of reality, and one wonders how the "cause" of this country in Southeast Asia is advanced by so ar bitrary a move.
A nation, like people, is often judged by the company it keeps.