Editor in chief: Jack Clifford
Associate Editors: Jonathon Allen, Jeff Smith
Newsroom: (541)346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
PO. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
Thursday
July 6,2000
Volume 102, Issue 5
Emerald
Photo illustration by Azle Malinao-Alvarez Emerald
The ever-increasing trend toward
reality-based TV shows reflects
everything but reality.
We’ve resisted the urge until now,
but the Emerald is finally weighing
in on the whole “reality-based televi
sion” trend.
CBS is leading the way with at
least two shows — “Survivor” and
“Big Brother,” which gobble up two
hours of prime-time television each
Wednesday — and only the TV
poobahs know how many more of
these programs are headed down the
creative flume.
Please, for the sake of humankind,
stop the ride now; we want to get off.
The emergence of these two shows
has generated endless debate on
newspaper op-ed pages, at office wa
ter coolers and in normal daily con
versation. Even Bryant Gumbel and
Jane Clayson, hosts of “The Early
Show,” CBS’ morning “news” pro
gram, host a Thursday morning
roundtable discussion on the previ
ous night’s “Survivor” outcomes.
Are we missing something here?
Why do the pertinent questions re
late to which loud-mouthed lout was
thrown off the island? Shouldn’t the
questions be more pointed and rele
vant?
First and foremost; When are we as
a society ever going to extinguish our
excessive, obsessive desire to peek
into others’ lives? Is that asking too
much, to just set aside our voyeuris
tic tendencies and maybe — hey,
here’s a novel idea — focus our ener
gies instead on a few real problems?
It’s sad really, the sometimes
ridiculous contrasts brought about by
“Survivor.”
Millions of viewers got all squeam
ish when they heard about some id
iot on that island recently eating a rat.
OK, not to sound melodramatic, but
can’t we be more concerned about
what isn’t being eaten?
According to a 1997 report re
leased by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, almost 100 billion
pounds of safe, edible food — meat
and poultry, fruit and vegetables,
milk and eggs — are thrown away
every year by retailers, restaurants
and farmers while 25 million Ameri
cans are hungry, including 12 mil
lion children.
And we’re all in a tizzy because
someone ate a damn rat?
Wednesday night’s premiere of
“Big Brother” was just as dishearten
ing. The show — evoking beat-us-all
over-the-head references to an Or
wellian society — is scary because
the cameras are never off, giving the
house residents zero privacy.
Come to think of it, however, that
sounds similar to any civil protest in
Eugene: the police are videotaping
the protesters, who are videotaping
the police, all cameras whirring non
stop.
Why not leave out the Orwellian
society part and just stick with the
beat-us-all-over-the-head aspect?
We as media consumers possess
the ability to throw these shows off
our viewing islands, one at a time.
Television shows — especially seri
als — do not stay on the air unless
people are watching them.
The fact that “Survivor” has, well,
survived and thrived is proof that TV
watchers are eating them up. It’s kind
of like downing that dirty rat. These
shows are a disgusting representa
tion of what U.S. society will con
sume to keep its television habit
alive.
So, here’s a shift in concept: Turn
the damn TV off. Go outside, and en
joy the measly three months of sun
shine that we get in these parts. You
don’t need to identify with characters
on television, because if you want,
you really can have a life of your own.
This editorial represents the view of the
Emerald editorial board. Responses may be
sent to ode@oregon.uoregon.edu.
Second-hand invasion of the mind snatchers
It’s 8 a.m., July 1, and I am sit
ting in the Seattle airport on
my way to Orange County for
the weekend.
My gripe — besides the fact that
there really must be no sun up here
— is this:
It’s not even 8:15 in the morning
yet, and there’s a television behind
me with sound shrieking from over
head speakers, invading what could
be a peaceful morning. There are
about 30 people in the gate area, and
20 of them have their eyes, their
consciousness and their morning
glued to the boob tybe hanging from
the wall.
As I sit here, my back to the
screeching commercials as my only
defense, I can’t help being just a bit
ticked off. Being a journalist who
will live on the support of advertis
ers, I of all people respect the right of
commercials and media to occupy a
place in our lives.
area. While second-hand smoke is
detrimental to a person’s physical
health, some oeonle find
But, we as consumers
have a fundamental right
to choose when we are go
ing to expose ourselves to
information technologies.
I should have the right
to sit here and read my
book without the distrac
tion of that blaring box
screaming for my atten
tion.
Now, I can admit that
the people around me
also have the right to
watch the TV if they want
lnk.jFfl
Commentary
Jonathon
Allen
that their mental health suf
fers when they are forced to
be around the TV.
We fence off smoking
rooms in the airport for
people who want to kill
| their lungs. Why not en
| close TV rooms for people
I who want to fry their
| brains?
j When I first arrived at the
| airport, there was a little
girl sitting behind me with
her mother. She had an
open book in her laD. but
hut torcing that chaos into other
people’s consciousness is as intru
sive as allowing my fellow travelers
to smoke cigarettes in this waiting
her eyes were fixated on the screen. I
can’t help but think she would have
been reading that book had it been
quiet in here. Instead, she was
watching fashion commercials that
were masked as a CNN Headline
News report.
Well, it’s almost 8:30 now, and the
number of people waiting for flights
has increased. The little girl is gone,
but there are plenty of other people
sitting around, reading materials in
their laps and eyes stolen by an in
vasion into our lives.
I’m going to try to read some more
of my book — a critical analysis of
television titled “Channels of Dis
course, Reassembled” — but maybe
I’ll just go find a smoking room to
save myself the trouble and the sec
ond-hand distraction.
Jonathan Allen is an associate editor for the
Oregon Daily Emerald. His views do not nec
essarily reflect those of the Emerald. He can
be contacted at jra2970@gladstone.uore
gon.edu.
Letters to,the editor
Inaccuracies damage
reputations
It was nice that you did an article
on Bach’s “St. John Passion” and the
panel discussion concerning it [ODE,
June 29], It would have been even nicer
if the article had been accurate. The
names listed below the photo in no
way matched individuals pictured.
More importantly, Johann Sebastian
Bach’s “St. John Passion” is certainly
not a “song.” It is a major choral work,
comprised of some 40 arias, recitatives
and chorales. The work is approxi
mately two hours in length, and fea
tures vocal soloists, chorus and orches
tra. It is arguably one of the greatest
choral masterpieces ever written.
You do your readers a disservice by
such inaccurate reporting. There are
many people from all over the world
here for the Bach Festival. Those who
read this article will certainly carry
away a negative impression of your
paper. Unfortunately, they may also
assume that your article reflects the
level of knowledge in Eugene as well.
Ellwood Cushman
University grad, 1970
Thumbs
To the Eugene po
lice union;
The union
dropped its plans
to sue City Coun
cilor David Kelly
for his comments
relating to police
actions during the
June17and18
anarachist rally.
Freedom of speech
reigns aga in.
To Venus and Sere
na Williams:
The sisters are the
main act today at
Wimbledon,
where they play in
the semifinals.
To locust swarms:
Northwest China
was under siege
but 250,000 work
ers helped eradi
cate the pests with
a massive spraying
program.
To Florida:
The same day the
state dropped its
law requiring
adult motorcyclists
to wear helmets, a
man, without a
helmet, died in St.
Petersburg when
his cycle turned
into the path of an
oncoming van.
What do you
. think of last
week’s Supreme
Court ruling that
lifted Nebraska’s
ban on partial
birth abortions?
I would agree with the
Supreme Court’s ruling be
cause I think that central
government doesn’t have
the right to have that much
control and someone who
you don’t know doesn’t
have the right to make
those decisions in your life.
—Justin Simmons,
philosophy junior
I totally agree with the rul
ing and I think that it still re
mains a woman’s choice to
decide what she wants to
do. I don’t think it should
be a political issue but it
seems to be. There’s always
going to be extremes one
way or another and people
are going to try to sway
opinion.
—Alise Carter,
education grad student
It breaks my heart that peo
ple are so concerned about
civil rights that they don’t
consider the civil rights of
an unborn child. This is a
neglected area of our popu
lation and people are more
concerned about conven
ience for their family or
their lifestyle—often —
than they are for children.
—Joan Kelley, grad student
for middle school and sec
ondary special education
I think that it’s fantastic
that a conservative court,
like the Supreme Court [is]
right now, was able to keep
the right to abortion open.
I’m actually terrified about
what’s going to happen
when George Bush gets in
office and starts putting in a
bunch of conservative jus
tices, because we’re going
to start losing that right.
—Tertius Rivers, chemistry
grad student
There are times when peo
ple have to make their own
decisions about what goes
on in their life. I think it’s
always going to be with us
as a controversial issue and
I think too many people
spend too much time wor
rying about what other
people do with their lives
instead of taking care of
their own.
— Faye Spidell,
campus visitor