I was sickened during this year's U.S. presidential race at the campaign coverage in papers I normally respect, mostly the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, although other papers were just as bad. What sickened me was the overwhelming focus on the horse race as opposed to the actual issues.

For some reason, journalists seemed to feel that campaign events--new strategies, snide comments, political gaffs, polls--were more significant and important to the readership than a discussion of the actual issues and positions of the candidates. The ramifications for what people base their votes on are frightening.

Experiencing my first Harvard campus-wide election (I was away last year), I didn't know exactly what to expect from campus press coverage. Today's (Tuesday, Dec. 3) Crimson is causing me to fear the worst, though I hope my fears are unfounded. The headline, "Campaigns Ready for Upcoming U.C. Election" tells the reader to expect little issue discussion and lots of (or at least some) horse race coverage. This is borne out with discussion in the article on " character of the campaign" and quotes from candidates not about issues, but about campaign tactics.

Even worse, to keep the reader entertained, the article brings in comic relief comments by a candidate discussing "porn channels". Granted, porn is always funny but perhaps for the first Crimson article on the council elections during campaign period, a few sentences or quotes on the issues might have been more useful to the readership.

I could be accused of the same crimes as I am accusing the paper--focusing on peripheral campaign junk rather than issues--however, The Crimson has a power which I don't have to create and maintain a tone for election coverage--this in itself is an issue I feel is worth time.

As for the other issues I believe in? Hopefully you'll see them covered soon in The Crimson. --David S. Goodman '97-'98   The writer is a candidate for   Undergraduate Council president.