When I read The Daily Collegian (Jan. 22), I realized once more that the Collegian is an example for irresponsible, or at least misguided, journalism.

The Jan. 22 editorial opinion exemplifies my point. I worked for a local newspaper in Germany for quite a while and was taught that an editorial should be a somewhat objective and responsible discussion of a specific topic.

There is a fine but nevertheless important line between critically informing the reader and influencing him/her. It is the same difference between information and propaganda or indoctrination and discussion. The editor in a regular newspaper is supposedly an experienced and somewhat mature writer who is able to control his emotions in his editorials. I do not know the editor of the Collegian, but I have my doubts that the individual fits the criteria outlined above.

But let us take a closer look at the editorials in question that have obviously upset me. In "Distant Glimmer" the editor seems to discuss the Jordanian cease-fire proposal. I say "seems" because the article only states that there is this proposal and then takes off accusing the United States of rejecting it in bad faith. There is no information whatsoever about the conditions of the proposal or its circumstances.

Futhermore, you have to read sentences like "when the U.S. attacked Iraq, the aggression was another example of U.S. imperialism and greed." I will not comment on this out-dated Marxist front-oraganization language, neither will I comment on the right or wrong of the statement itself. My point of concern is that this is a one-sided and extremist point of view.

I have no problems, if I find this view expressed in a reader's letter, but an editorial should go beyond the mere expression of opinion by an individual. An editorial has to meet its responsibilities as a semi-official organ of the newspaper itself. Therefore, it is usually written by one of the papers more distinguished writers. But if indeed the editor, in this article, expresses the opinion of the entire Collegian, I believe the paper has lost touch with its constituency.

The second article deals with war related censorship. The claim is made that "accurate information is vital" for the need of the public. Censorship "results in skewed reporting, misinformation and propaganda." Finally, the article states that "during other wars the media were given the chance to report battles accurately and responsibly." Here, the editor is misinformed and is misinforming the public on several grounds.

First, the claim that uncensored reporting guarantees accurate information does not bear any foundation. The live coverage of the war by the Cable News Network, as interesting and fascinating as it is, did not produce any accurate information but rather current information.

Second, no war in history has had news coverage as prompt and as current. This is true simply because the technology for today's coverage was not availble then. If the opponent only has to watch television in order to be informed when the next air strike is on its way, the news coverage seems to be a a bit too currrent.

Third, the kind of censorship imposed by the United State does not increase the danger of misinformation nor propaganda. If the editor would have made the effort to listen to the various official statements issued before and after the restrictions on news coverage, he/she would have found out that propaganda is an essential tool of warfare and was present in the news from the first day of the war, if not earlier.

I suggest that before the Collegian cries out against censorship by the government and praises the "intelligence of networks and newspapers" as well as the responsible news coverage in previous times, the Collegian itself should show some of this intelligence and live up to its responsibilities as a campus newspaper.