Having seen the film "Cover-up: Behind the Iran-Contra Affair," I am compelled to respond to the review by Kevin Brass ("Iran-Contra, Penn Make for Strong Stuff," Oct. 12). Brass charges that the film is "not a balanced, objective piece of work" and notes that "there is little attempt to present dissenting information."
Would Brass respond similarly to a George Bush or Ronald Reagan speech? Does he honestly believe that he is balanced and objective? What is objectivity? My own biases are reflected in what we choose to focus on and how we choose to deal with some topics but not others.
The myth of objectivity is generally conjured when a dissenting voice dares to speak. Charges of not giving equal time to the "other side" are heard when someone dissents from the status quo. Rarely do we hear such charges when a film or writer go along with the Establishment.
The profound importance of "Cover-up" is that it provides a perspective on a critical issue that is generally ignored by the mass media. It documents the horrendous activities the Reagan-Bush-North gang have engaged in for many years, including drug smuggling, assassinations, and much more. While it may not be pleasant to confront these truths, it is essential that we do so in order to protect our Constitution.
Democracy does not consist of looking the other way while governments engage in criminal activity. Interestingly enough, stifling dissent through such reviews as Brass' is a longtime tact of the CIA, an organization which the film focuses on a great deal.