Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (April 6, 1981)
opinion I; greg wesson I Si. ° quorum of one Saturday’s sun had become Sunday’s rain. To escape the relentless moisture I returned to my journal, this time to compose some fiction. As I entered the office to do my weekly column, I could sense a difference in the mood. The usual happy-go-lucky Ken Sands sat head in hands in the editor’s cubicle. Being a former Emerald editor myself, I went in to see what counsel I could provide. “I can’t take it,” lamented Ken. "I just found out that Pat Horton has no intention of shooting Rich Brooks as we reported April 1. I can under stand his complaint. Accuracy is the hallmark of fine reporting. How will we ever live this down.” The whistling tea pot interrupted my writing before I fashioned a response. And even the steaming cup of Earl Grey at my side didn’t prompt one. Stymied, I flipped to my review of the com munity's reaction to The Immorald. Both Horton and Eugene’s other daily con demned the April Fool’s edition for making light of violence and killing. They implied that killing is foreign to civilized people and is not a fitting topic for satire. In a Friday editorial, the Guard wrung its editorial hands that 20-year-olds in some “of the most favored positions in society" could sink to such levels. Two days later, the following para graphs appeared in a front-page story about the growing popularity of guns. The story opened with a description of a 72-year-old woman buying a pistol with her social security check. “ ‘I'm going to get a 16-shell gun next,’ the grey-haired woman said, pulling a shawl around her... 1 can use it, too,’ May added with a wry smile on her face. ‘I grew up in Virginia. I used to pick cherries with a rifle.’ Sidner (owner of the gun shop) smiles know ingly as the young men wheel Mae out of the shop.” As much as most Americans would like to deny it, violence is an integral part of our society. The foreign policy endorsed by our president and secretary of state can be stated simply as "Do what we want, or we’ll shoot you.” My crescendoing condemnation came to an abrupt halt when the ringing phone fell to the floor. I retrieved the receiver only to greet an angry Angus Dudaw. "Where do you get off printing a lot of that crap,” demanded Angus. "To offend simply to offend is an irresponsible use of satire. Things like the district attorney and university adminstration deserve to be attacked, but the women’s movement or efforts of the handicapped don’t. You need to direct your attacks with more preci sion.” “Hold it, Angus,” I pleaded. "I agree with you. I had nothing to do with The Immorald nor any advance notice of what was coming. Give me a, well you know, a break.” va irs Pat answers I was appalled to see the cover of your April 1, 1981 satire issue — the so-called "Daily Immorald.” The story relating to Rich Brooks and myself went far beyond an April Fools joke and in my opinion was in extremely poor taste. We all can appreciate ‘‘college humor,” as well as satire directed at public officials — but certainly not when it talks about killing people. Surely the Emerald staff has the intellectual capabilities of amusing its readers without resorting to the tactic of printing an abundance of four-letter words which do not even rise to the level of "toilet humor.” Good satire is not measured, as you seem to imply, by the amount of outrage one can generate. I think you owe both Rich Brooks and myself an apology. Pat Horton District Attorney Disdains Horton Congratulations on your 1981 Immor ald issue. This year's Immorald was a well-written, well-conceived, and thor oughly hysterical piece of satire. Anyone who finds personal insults in this kind of comedy is either completely devoid of a sense of humor, or else has such a low level of self-esteem that any attack, no matter how ridiculous, seems devastat ing. As far as district attorney Pat Horton’s complaints against the Immorald’s cover story go, the people of Lane County would be far better served if Mr. Horton spent less time condemning an obviously satirical excercise of our free press, and more time keeping the contents of the Lane County evidence locker safe from the inquisitive eyes and hands of his giggling pornography-hungry assistant D.A.s. I mean, for Christ’s sake, Pat — give me a fucking break! Sincerely and without actual malice Mark B.“Willls” Williams 2nd year, law Lost words I found myself at a loss for words after , reading today’s issue of the “Immorald.” Isn't it a pity that you and your staff suffered from the same malady while you were writing it? P S. You must think the First Amend ment is a license, rather than a respon sibly. Malcolm MacEwan Journalism, 1949 dgrrmtA! mrf (i)t9B>W|<*MM0|bN <*>£ 1 <;md LtAP CLh? CLAP CM M? mk 5m» wtukb m STATUS QUO HERE, OR, SAY HERE, WE WOULD fQRCEfiMY COUNTER HERE AND HERE AND EVEN HERB... sm thine gobs for El SALVADOR. ■■ Immorald, IFC Having been on this campus for three years, I have had the opportunity to read three of your Immorald issues. As you stated in today’s issue (Friday 3 April), "Wit...is in the eye of the beholder.” But perhaps before you try again next year, you should first give some thought to exactly who the beholder is! You state that the ODE operates "in dependently” of the University, and in your editorial, you claim that your means of support is advertising, but perhaps you are forgetting that the students of this University are also your means of support. How much did you get from the IFC this year? Why not try something different next year. Print your Immorald issue a day or two prior to the IFC funding hearings Perhaps then the joke would be on you Thom Strunk Graduate, education Brooks is obscene As an individual who has been severely lampooned at least twice by previous issues of the Immorald, I wish to state that people have obviously forgotten the point of the Immorald — that is to be completely absurd — to make light of things that newspapers are not normally allowed to in their coverage of day-by day events. As far as obscene or filthy language being part of the Immorald — this is nothing more than a lampoon at the hypocritical norms that abound about what people may or may not say. One more thing — about people demanding that the Immorald apologize for satirizing Rich Brooks — I wish to know — when has Rich Brooks ever apologized for dragging this University’s fine name though the national mud in terms of scandals? When has the athletic department ever apologized for deliberately making budgets which they knew full well students would have to make up due to their massive deficit spending. The real obscenity is allowing Rich Brooks and other members of the athle tic department tainted by scandal to continue working in this fine intitution. Rich Brooks and everyone else richly deserve what they got — perhaps more. Mark Miller Director, UO Drug Information Center Horton’s obscene Don’t look now, but this is a letter of support for the April Fool’s Day issue While I concur with the general sen timent that the "Immorald” was vulgar and utterly tasteless, I also thought it was funny as hell. If you need any help with your defense committee (judging by the general response, you’re going to need one), just let me know. There are some genuine obscenities in the “Emerald” of April 2, however, that I would like to protest strongly: 1) the huge ad on page 2 advertising career oppor tunities in the Marines; and, 2) Pat Hor ton's views on castration of rapists, views shamelessly expounded in a page 11 article. Isn’t it amazing that people will scream bloody murder over a few nasty words (which they’re perfectly free not to read), but not utter a murmur of protest over the attempted recruitment of innocent young men to go off and maim and kill for the benefit of the oil companies and the multinational corporations? Isn’t it a telling comment on our times when folks will freak out over the satir ization of a public official, but calmly accept that official’s right to recommend forms of sub-human brutality that should have disappeared along with the opera tors of Buchenwald and Dachau? Are our values inverted — or simply non-existent? Cathi Beavers Sophomore, anthropology
