| OCR Text |
Show 125 Telegram responded to the venomous debate in an editorial putting Bennett's outrage in context: "To be sure, [one million acres] represents only about one-fifteenth of Utah's total land mass. But Utahns keep a jealously close watch on every inch oftbat land since the federal government controls about three-fourths of it and because only a relatively small portion of this desert state is agriculturally or commercially usablc.',3 73 The editorial called for compromise but noted, "S uch compromise, however, will be difficult to obtain if bitter name calling is foolishly allowed to obscure the real issucs."374 News pages of the local papers received public criticism for publishing all the attacks with little attempt to dig for truth. In a speech to Utah Democrats, Udall referenced complaints by Representative Peterson and Senator Moss that the local papers had printed "ha\f.truths and misinfonnation.'.3 75 lie did not place blame primarily on the newspapers: The papers had "been reporting what the other side has said, and what we have said," Udall told his audience. 376 He credited opponents of the proposed park with helter organiz.ation in communicating their views. Udall said the opposition had used the media to its advantage, and he urged those who supported conservation to get bener organized in promoting their views. Both sides of the debate tried to use the press to further their goals. Both sides claimed they had support from the majority of Utahns. But those who supported Canyonlands felt their views were discredited in a press environment that used adjectives m Deseret N~sandSalt Lnke Telegram, ''What's the Next Park Step," September 28, 1961, AIO. mlbid. m M. DcMar Teuscher, "Udall, Clyde Narrow Difference in Views," Deseret News and Safi lake Telegram, October 17, 1961, BIO J76 Teuscher, "Udall, Clyde Narrow Difference," Deseret News and Sall lake Telegram, October 17, 1961. |
