Thursday
Editor in chief: Jack Clifford
Managing Editor: Jessica Blanchard
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
September28,2000 VOLUME 102, ISSUE 22
EDITORIAL EDITOR: opededitor@journalist.com, Michael Kleckner
AND
PROFITS
ERIC PFEIFFER
Hi, my name is Eric Pfeiffer. This
is the beginning of a new col
umn about politics. I’m a so
cially progressive, fiscal conser
vative, and generally considered a shy,
sensitive, incredible pain in the ass. My
job is to entertain you. I also hope to
share some fresh ideas and views on na
tional politics.
Now, let’s talk a little about me. There
have been a good number of tirelessly
bland writers to shuffle and slide
through this institution. To the best of my
ability, I aim to be a mensch. I can prom
ise you that I will never write about ani
me, sexual exploits or New Age crap. I
will not try to be Hunter S. Thompson.
I will, however, write about that lovely,
oftentimes bloated, monolith known as
government.
The 18-to-25 age group has been tagged
the most apathetic group of voters in
America. I don’t expect too many of you to
run home, proclaiming, “Finally, a column
on politics! ” But many of you will read,
and for you, I am your humble servant.
As this is our first date, I’ll keep my
hands to myself and politely walk you to
the front door. Since I’m asking you for
your time and your thoughts, I think it’s
only fair that you know a little about me.
First, the label: I’m a 22-year-old, white
male. Statistically, in this town like any
way, that makes me the little clone who
could.
Why, then, am I qualified to be writing
this column?
Since transferring to the University,
I’ve been a student senator, worked for
the campus radio station, volunteered on
political campaigns, and once worked as
an editor for this paper.
Right now, I’m writing for a magazine
called the National Journal in Washing
ton, D.C.
I’ve spent most of my life living below
the federal poverty level, and have
worked since I was 14 to support my
family and myself. I also have an illness
called Crohn’s disease.
For most of my life, I have enjoyed a rich
and somewhat unusual love affair with
politics, beginning as a six-year-old,
when I distributed fliers for the Jesse Jack
son Rainbow Coalition. I wasn’t educated
on the issues, but Ronald Reagan scared
me.
But those times have passed like so
■ many empty bags of jellybeans, and
we’re now in an era of unparalleled
prosperity, right? Wrong.
These days, Bush 2.0: Project “W”, re
minds me of a children’s Christmas tale.
We’ll call him “Shrub, the red-nosed
Wrangler.”
An outsider in the corporate gift em
pire, nobody expected much out of
lil’ Shrub. His nose was red from too
much snorting, and all the Ivy-Lea
guers used to laugh and call him
names. Then, one foggy election
eve, Daddy came to
say, “Shrub, we
know you ain’t ^
so bright, but
won’t you
guide our
campaign
tonight?”
Then, all
the share
holders
loved him,
and they
cackled out
with glee,
“Shrub, the
red-nosed
Wrangler, you’ll make us a lot of money.”
I swear to you, this election isn’t as
boring as political insiders and the main
stream media want you to believe. They
benefit when you don’t vote. And even if
Bush and Gore appear to be similar on
many of the issues, don’t listen to the
fork-tongued fools who tell you they are
exactly the same. Anyone with conserva
tive, liberal, or even moderate values has
a stake in this election. If you are a woman
who values choice, the candidates are
worlds apart. If you value a free market,
Bush has the industry-approved plan. And
if you really want something different,
there are third-party candidates, like Ralph
Nader, who literally make every vote
count. I’m not telling you who to vote for
(unless you ask), but I am saying that any
one who claims your vote doesn’t matter is
either oblivious to the issues, or a liar.
.Of course, most of you won’t vote, and
who can blame you? But by choosing to
remain in the dark, your vote isn t going
to “None of the Above”; instead, you’re
endorsing the decline of democracy.
People say Americans are entitled to
their opinions. I disagree. We are entitled
to our informed opinions, and everything
else is sewage rotting across the airwaves.
The sign that reads: Welcome to MTV
Hell, where a person can use words like
Dachau and Iran-Contra and not register a
blip on the cultural radar.
I’m telling you, the way things are head
ed, you’re going to long for a president who
wore black sunglasses, played the saxo
phone, and wanted an occasional blow job.
Well, that’s enough from me. I prom
ised to keep my hands to myself. Intro
ductions are always the hardest part.
Eric Pfeiffer is a columnist for the Oregon Daily
Emerald and is currently serving an internship at
the National Journal Hotline in Washington, D.C.
His views do not necessarily represent those of the
Emerald. He can be reached at epfeiffe@glad
stone.uoregon.edu
Letters to the editor
Students don’t belong in policy matters
I find it somewhat ironic that the same individuals
who were all for University inclusion in the WRC are
now totally against membership in the FLA. I still
don't agree with the original decision to join the WRC
(let’s face it — it is an organization funded/financed
by organized labor to promote domestic employment
only)and to furthef the opinions of 18 and 19-year
old KIDS. The University should not have ANY po
litical affdiations and until the aforementioned indi
viduals actually get out in the "Real World", I would
prefer future decisions regarding University policy
be made by the administration.
. Stick to sit-ins, bake sales and charity walks.
Andrew McKechnie
Lumber.Broker
Portland
Yahoo ad inappropriate
I am writing in response to the advertising insert
from Yahoo Messenger in Tuesday’s (9/26) Emerald. I
feel more thought should have gone into the decision
to accept this ad for publication.
Tuesday’s ad seems to describe some sort of un
consensual peeping tom or gang rape situation. The
ad copy is deliberately vague, and the suggestion that
there is a need for secrecy makes an innocent inter
pretation of what is going on impossible.
Knowing that ads like this one are acceptable to
your advertising department make me feel unsafe
and unwelcome at the University. A highly regarded
publication such as the Emerald would do much for
its credibility by taking a stance against ads like this
one in its advertising policy, rather than going with
the status quo.
Lately the attitude in advertising seems to be:
“Boys will be Boys—where’s your sense of humor?” I
think many men would be equally unamused if ad
vertising focused on penis length rather than the cur
rent obsession with breast size. “Come over quick
Bob! He’s about to drop his pants! ”
I hope in the future the advertising department
will consider more carefully the impact of its deci
sions on all of its readers, and not simply sell out for
those much-needed advertising dollars. That way,
the next time you run an article about protecting one
self from date rape, I won’t feel you are working at
cross purposes.
Kathleen Ehli
Pre-journalism
CONTACT US1
The Oregon Daily Emerald welcomesand will attempt
to print all letters on topics of interest to the University
community. Letters are limited to 250 words. The Emer
ald may edit any letter for length, clarity, grammar,
style and libel, letters may be mailed, dropped off at
EMU Suite 300, or e-mailed to the addresses at the top
of the page. Also, please feel free to give your feedback
to any individual story or column directly at our Web
site. Feedback comments may appear in print at our
discretion. Keep in touch!
Wisconsin’s distortion makes the big picture unclear for all
The University of Wisconsin
made a terrible error in judgment
last week, and everyone who
works for the media are at risk as a
result.
Wisconsin’s campus publica
tions office printed a brochure with
a photo on the cover of joyous fans
at a Badger football game. Because
there were no black students visi
ble in the photograph, the office
cut-and-pasted the head of a black
student from another photo and in
serted him in the game photo. It has
since apologized and reprinted the
digitally-manipulated promotional
brochure, but the ethical que.stions
around doctored photographs re
main.
We don’t want to get into Wis
consin’s internal issues of campus
population diversity. According to
a Sept. 10 article in The Register
Guard, only 2.15 percent of the uni
versity’s 40,000 students are black.
Maybe the campus community in
Wisconsin needs to address that
statistic.
The larger question of concern
for our campus, and for the media
in general, is the idea that someone
in charge made the decision to alter
the reality of a photograph and
present that lie as truth to the world
at large. This particular image was
n’t in a news publication, but even
advertising and public relations
need to be concerned with main
taining some ethical line of reality
for consumers.
In advertisements, we are often
presented with an image or a situa
tion that is patently unreal. No one
thinks the Taco Bell Chihuahua re
ally talks, and we’re not worried
here with images of unrealistically
shaped women lounging on nonex
istent beaches drinking cocktails.
Digital manipulation is used in
these ads and the great majority of
advertising you see. For the most
part, there’s no problem with this.
But when a promotional photo
or an ad is playing on the audience
by purportedly depicting the real
world, nothing should be shown
except what the camera lens
recorded. Otherwise, we have
nothing to rely on as readers and
public cynicism toward the media
will only grow.
Certainly, in some situations,
there is gray area between what the
camera saw and what actually hap
pened. And we all need to remem
ber as consumers that a great per
centage of real-looking photographs
are staged and posed. But even
when reality is pre-arranged for the
camera, our human brains tend to
assume that the picture is showing
us what the camera saw. If the pub
lic is forced to throw that assump
tion out the window, everything
journalists do will become suspect,
and the power of a reporter’s skepti
cism will be meaningless.
Sometimes, manipulation is
done with good intent. Perhaps the
person in charge at Wisconsin
thought that a greater good would
be served by trying to represent the
diversity that is present at that cam
pus. But the photo doesn’t show
2.15 percent of students as black.
The percentage in the photo is
much greater. And it didn’t happen.
The piercing shrill of alarm should
have rung in this person’s head.
“Whoa, I’m lying. Why? Isn’t reality
true enough to stand on its own? Is it
that important to give lip service to
diversity that barely exists?”
That lie is the most frightening
part of Wisconsin’s gaffe. Someone
thought it was acceptable to lie.
That puts all of us in the media at
risk. Basic ethics tell us that you
need a really good reason to lie, and
Wisconsin didn’t have one. We
hope that young people intending
to make a career in journalism and
communication use this as an abject
lesson, and that seasoned profes
sionals address this issue in an on
going manner. The credibility of the
media is on the line.
This editorial represents the opinion of
the Emerald editorial board. Responses
may be sent to ode@oregon.uoregon.edu