Tuesday
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-maii: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
EDITORIAL EDITOR: MICHAEL J. KLECKNER opededitor@journalist.com
Consume every
&xtc
with a grain of salt
SCRIBBLES OF
SANITY
vision, newspapers, magazines,
radio, billboards - the list goes on
and on. Even if you wanted to
avoid it, you couldn’t.
On the whole, information isn’t
that bad. It tells you where to buy
a car, how to get from point A to
point B and who won the World
Series. But improving technology
allows nearly anyone to say or
write anything they want.
Which is great, right? That way,
we can truly express ourselves
freely. The marketplace of ideas.
Yeah, that’s all good, as long as
you are expressing an opinion.
But what about passing free ex
pression off as fact?
The Internet shows how easy it
is to release information to the
public. Anyone can construct a
Web page explaining how the
U.S. government has developed a
top secret genetic device that al
lows the CIA to read people’s
thoughts. You can add “blue
prints” and a document “signed”
by President Clinton to the page
with “TOP SECRET” boldly in
scribed at the top, just to con
vince any skeptics. And voila,
you have information.
Not everyone would be con
vinced, but you might be sur
prised at how many would. In
general, people believe that if it
looks like information, it must be
w
e are living in the
Misinformation Age.
Information is every
where. Internet, tele
TRUE information.
Negative. Misinformation hap
pens frequently. It may even have
happened to you, and you may
not even know it.
However, misinformation re
quires that the author of the infor
mation is deliberately misleading
the audience to believe some
thing other than the truth. A good
example of misinformation is
when salespeople try to convince
you to buy something.
But you almost expect that
from a salesperson.
So, in order to avoid being mis
informed, you must only accept
information that comes from a re
liable source. Wait a minute.
What about the picture of O.J.
Simpson on the covers of
Newsweek and Time magazine?
These are considered reputable
sources, but it was obvious that
the pictures were doctored.
You could tell because it was
the exact same picture, except
one was darkened to give him an
intense, shadowy countenance
and the other was lightened,
making him look wide-eyed and
innocent. Again, misinformation.
No one knew the truth about O.J.,
and yet both magazines were try
ing to portray guilt or innocence
rather than just his face.
Even reliable sources screw up.
There is also the obvious fic
tion in supermarket tabloids.
They try to convince us that
UFOs landed in Texas and that a
woman gave birth to a monkey in
New York. This is misinforma
tion at its peak. But anyone who
believes that tabloids have an
ounce of truth in them has my
sympathy.
And let’s not forget the ever
popular, quick-advice magazines.
Who hasn’t waited in the grocery
line to buy that 10-pound pack
age of ramen noodles and turned
to read “Tips on How to Have
Great Sex!” “Lose 20 pounds in 6
days without dieting!” And the
ever-popular, “10 Great Makeup
Tips!”
The truth is, if you want great
sex you have to work at it, again
and again and again. To lose
weight, stop eating cold pizza for
breakfast. Get a free makeover at
Nordstrom’s; as the professional
works on your face, keep notes
and repeat the technique at
home. Wow! All that advice and I
haven’t read one of those maga
zines. My secret? Common sense.
The moral of the story — take
what you see, hear and read with
a grain of salt. Be cautious con
sumers of information; don’t gob
Bryan Dixon Emerald
ble down every bit as if it is all
the same. There is a difference
between digesting a Double
Deluxe Hamburger and shoe
leather. If you take in everything,
you may get indigestion.
Jayna Bergerson is a columnist for the
Oregon Daily Emerald. Her views do not
necessarily represent those of the Emer
ald. She can be reached at bjay@glad
stone.uoregon.edu.
Slay the two-headed monster:finding the ‘radical center’
SAINTS AND
PROFITS
ERIC PFEIFFER
nee again, it’s time to un
leash the dogs.
Before we get started, I
would like to thank
those of you who have responded
through e-mail to my columns. I
enjoy cutting through the rhetoric
with all of you and forming some
solid views on politics. You may
not always like what you read, but
I can guarantee that it comes spin
free, with no hidden agenda.
Based on my first column, some
of you might have been misled
into believing that I’m a Bush-hat
ing, Al Gore apologist. Far from it!
Truth be told, I prefer a concept
known as the “radical center.” The
radical center believes that great
change can take place, but that it
must be done on an incremental
level. From this perspective, the
special-interest lobby is to blame
for most of the problems in Wash
ington and the mainstream media
today.
Powerful lobbies, representing
hungry constituencies, are each
fighting for their own piece of the
American pie. It sounds like both
democracy and the market inter
woven in beautiful synergy, but it
just isn’t so. Instead, federal bu
reaucrats become street hustlers,
peddling out the goods to power
junkies. This idea mainly offends
liberals, but pertains to conserva
tives as well.
We’ve had three historic leaders
over the past 20 years who have at
tempted drastic reform in govern
ment: Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton
and Newt Gingrich. Each one
marched into Washington promis
ing to end big government, reform
the system and return integrity to
politics. Sadly, each one failed
more dramatically than the last.
The end result is what Ralph
Nader calls, “The merging of par
ties into one giant corporation
with two heads.” Unfortunately,
Mr. Nader cannot claim innocence
in this matter. He's the godfather of
the special interest. He makes a
valid point, but that doesn’t
change the often negative effects of
his approach. Make no mistake, if
Mr. Nader were elected, his plat
form of instant gratification would
be just as harmful to our society as
that of Pat Buchanan. You can’t do
it all by yourself, and you can’t do
it all at once. Our founding fathers
constructed a system to prevent
hasty decisions, and it’s a good
thing they did.
As a result of pandering to the’
special interests, Democrats have
lost touch with what once made
them a liberal party. I’m not a lib
eral, but I used to admire the De
mocrats for standing their ground
on economic and social policy.
They helped change the world.
Now, they stand for getting elect
ed at any cost. Of course, I can’t
quite call myself a Republican, ei
ther. I’m not a country club racist
who wants the government out of
my wallet and inside your bed
room.
If the Democrats had some in
tegrity, or the Republicans
stopped using J.C. Watts and cast
extras from El Mariachi for their
modern-day minstrel show, I’d
gladly join either side.
The solution for a radically
centrist gov ament lies in com
passionate conservatism. Unfortu
nately, it’s not the exact vision es
poused by Gov. Bush. He’s got the
right idea, but like Reagan and
Clinton discovered, you can’t
shove it down America’s throat.
Now, when I’m not writing this
column, I tend to be a positive guy.
In spite of my love for ‘80s
post-apocalyptic science-fiction
movies, I do believe the world is
going to be OK. People surprise
me every day with their sincerity,
kindness and love for those
around them. It’s the people run
ning the show who scare me.
Next week, instead of pointing
fingers, I’ll talk about some solu
tions to this problem of the para
sitic economy. Until then, keep
those love letters and death
threats on the go-go.
Eric Pfeiffer is a columnist for the Oregon
Daily Emerald, currently serving an intern
ship at the National Journal Hotline in
Washington, D C. His view s do not neces
sarily represent those t.; ie Emerald. He
can be reached at
epfeiffe@gladstone.uoregon.edu.