manipulating the other jurors he is notnacting out of pure principle but is satisfyingnsome ego need of his own that isnnot revealed to us? The convicters arenlaid bare: Begley is a cheap bigot; Marshallna heartless robot; Cobb a narrowmindednfailed father. But who isnFonda, and why is it necessary to concealnhis true identity? Fonda appearsnto be Everyman, a tribute to the faithnthat “all men are created equal.” ButnFonda is not equal. He is superior innEditor’s Commentncontinued from page 5nthe wholeness of life and shapes it according to its ownnimperious liberalism. One of its most perverse, totalitariannmendacities was recently epitomized in a sentence from anTime magazine essay which perfectly reflects Time’s “philosophy”nand its sense of social service:n”Under the reign of permissiveness (made possible onlynby the acquiescence of a majority of Americans), a handfulnof pornographers flaunt their wares heedless of thenpublic incidentally offended, and pimps herd their whoresnalong city streets with the same tyrannical disregard fornthose they might offend.”nThe Big Lie is in parentheses. Permissiveness was nevernmade possible by the acquiescence of a majority of Americans,nbut by Time’s (and Newsweek’s, and New York Times’,netc.) articles, features, copies, news and pictures which extollednit as the most “natural,” “liberated” and “modern”nattitude. Time, among others, shapes and engineers publicnopinion, social climates, cultural and behavioral trends andnfashions, in keeping with the liberal tenet. And then whennthe unbound libcultural laxness in people and mores, evolvednfrom cheap ideologies advocated by Time, breeds crime, mishap,npsychic ills and moral collapse— Time, which hasnnever condemned anything on the merit of advance reasoning,ncasts itself simply as an observer and reporter of thenbad news. Which is a calamitous corruption of reality andntruth.nWhenever voices are heard that the idea of the FirstnAmendment has been badly vitiated, we are told that we areninterfering with the people’s right to know. Those who objectnbelieve that the present comportment of the media in factnhelps to create hijackers, Mansons, Sons of Sam, and —nwhat’s much worse — deformed, sordid, nefarious modesnability, intelligence, and education. Henis, though the fact is well-concealed, annintellectual (if one may say so, a liberalnintellectual) and therefore he is, byndefinition, a doubter, someone who hasnbeen trained to find “”a reasonablendoubt” even in the most obvious fact.nIt was probably necessary to maintainnFonda’s cover in order to make then”moral” of the film work. Had he beennidentified by occupation and/or educationnas a “liberal intellectual” he wouldnhave lost his status as DemocraticnEveryman.nBut though Fonda is a doubter, hisnmind has no “depth.” It is a whollynsuperficial reflection of a single principle:ndue process of law. And whilenthe principle itself is a major achievementnof civilization, and may even benin itself profound, nevertheless a mindnthat reflects this principle and nothingnelse must inevitably be deemed shallow,nnnof thinking, allegiances, perceptions in huge masses of people.nA cogent opinion on this is given by Professor ArthurnMiller from Harvard University:n”No one disputes the proposition that the people have anright to know. But like any platitude, it is nothing but angeneralization. The deeper questions are: Know what?nand. What practices may the press employ to gather information?n”As things now stand, [1] the press may publish demonstrablenfalsehoods, subject only to a remote threat ofnliability; [2] the media have arrogated to themselves thenright to publish any “truth,” no matter how private it maynbe or how prurient the interest it caters to; and [3] journalistsnjustify using improper and intrusive techniquesnin terms of the ‘benefit’ produced by their stories. All innall, a disturbing situation.”nA he fact that the media maliciously ignore the nonliberalnand conservative intellectual effort already has (and willnhave more in the future) a sinister impact on our civilization.nThe Chicago Tribune, which deems itself a meticulouslynevenhanded organ, will run gargantuan features on socialistnjournals, but will not acknowledge the existence of the intellectuallynimpressive and influential nonliberal or conservativenpublications which have been multiplying throughoutnthe nation. This is not only a misdeed, it’s a mistake. Such anpractice seems to be a conscious effort to split the nationalnculture. In the ’60s, a presidential commission menaced societynwith the prediction that because of racial strife we wouldnbe soon divided into two nations. This did not happen. However,nthe liberal press’ ostracizing of the considerable nonliberalnand conservative accumulation of thought is, actually,nsplitting America into two cultures. It remains to be seennwhich of these cultures — the liberal or the conservativenone — will be the ultimate winner, even if odds are, at thisnhistorical moment, firmly on the side of the former.nnn— Leopold Tyrmandnmmmmm^mmmmmZinChronicles of Cttltaren