Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 2, 2001)
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511 Room 300, Erb Memorial Union P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403 E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com Online Edition: www.dailyemerald.com Editor in Chief: Jessica Blanchard Managing Editor: Michael J. Kleckner Editorial Editor: Julie Lauderbaugh Assistant Editorial Editor: Jacquelyn Lewis Tuesday, October 2,2001 Editorial Don t censor songs because of attacks Since the terrorist strikes oc curred three weeks ago on the East Coast, the Ameri can people have become fa miliar with the art of attack. Ter rorists attacked the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a plane that crashed in Pennsylvania; hatemongers have been attacking Muslims and citizens whose looks suggest Middle Eastern de scent; and now the First Amend ment is under attack by station di rectors employed by a media conglomerate called Clear Chan nel Communications. Clear Channel owns approxi mately 1,170 radio stations in the United States and reaches more than 110 million listeners. The company was accused of censor | ship in the New York Times; how ever, the Clear Channel denies any First Amendment violations. According to Clear Channel, sta tion directors sent to member sta tions a list of 150 songs they thought were inappropriate and could offend some listeners in the wake of the recent terrorist at tacks. Other members of the me dia, including the Emerald edito rial board, think this suggested blacklist smacks of overt censor ship under the guise of sensitivity. Some of the songs on the banned list were seemingly harmless tunes such as John Lennon’s “Imagine,” a song about world peace, and the Dave Matthews Band’s “Crash Into Me,” arguably a love song. Music is interpretive by na ture, and we teeter on dangerous ground as a society when we al low the infiltration of censorship even on the airwaves. Potentially any song that happened to be playing on the radio the morning of the attacks could bring back memories for listeners. It is ab solutely ludicrous to censor based on content in any form, es pecially if the intent is to protect listeners from remembering the tragedy. By blacklisting potentially of fensive songs, station directors are also launching an attack on the intelligence of millions of lis teners. After all, if a listener does n’t like the music, he or she can simply change the channel. We need to respect right to dissent Freedom of the press is protected by the First Amendment to the Con stitution, but apparently in this period of American histo ry, members of the press may be taking their freedom for granted. The Daily Courier, a Grants Pass newspaper, recently fired a colum nist who criticized the actions of President Bush immediately fol lowing the attacks of Sept. 11. Dan Guthrie wrote that he believed President Bush was “hiding in a Nebraska hole” instead of return ing to the White House after being informed of the terrorism. Guthrie further criticized the president, saying that once faced with real pressure, Bush succumbed to stress and “bolted.” After publishing the column, the Daily Courier received so many letters criticizing Guthrie that the publisher promptly fired him and then printed an editorial apologizing for any undue anger the column may have provoked. The publisher claimed the dis missal was due to a “personnel problem.” Columnists are paid to share their opinions, despite the popu larity or lack thereof of those opinions. Some may agree with Guthrie’s assessment of President Bush’s reaction to the terrorism, while others are welcome to dis agree. However, when a newspa per begins firing columnists be cause the writer’s ideas spark a negative backlash, the whole country’s freedom of speech is under fire. In this period of uncertainty, every voice deserves to be heard, and it is critical that dissenting voices be heard. The First Amendment is something we need to protect as a society, no matter your opinion of George W. Bush. Editorial Policy These editorials represent the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. The editorial board members are editor in chief Jessica Blanchard, managing editor Michael J. Kieckner, editorial editor Julie Lauderbaugh, assistant editorial editor Jacquelyn Lewis, community representative 6abe Shaughnessy. Responses can be sent to editor#dailyemerald. com. Lette rs to the editor and guest commentaries are encouraged, Utters are limited to 250 words and guest commentaries to 550 words. Please include contact information. The Emerald reserves the right to edit for space, grammar and style. Clarification In the Monday, Sept. 24, edition of the Emerald, the little gH Grace, pictured on page 3 with the article “Voters approve Broadway reopening,11 should have been identified as the daughter of both Angela Jaster and Tony Russell. Steve Baggs Emerald to life alone before marriage So we've come to college, that crazy place where choices hop upon our doorsteps in neatly wrapped packages with “try me” on their tags, all done up in tinsel and little bows. We look at these in delight and wear what we've come to find proudly on our fore heads or secretly in our closets, all the while singing, "Freedom!" But alongside new things that are tried, there is always that in herent risk of how the outcome will affect us. And of the many fetishes we college kids like to partake of, one that is particularly prevalent involves living together with a boyfriend or girlfriend out side of marriage. I must say it is quite the trend these days, almost as common as Starbucks coffee cups, and it seems as harmless. Thus the pop ular argument: A couple should live together before they get mar ried to make sure they are really right for each other. Couples should have a trial run, or in other words, a chance to run away. Part of the reason for this widespread case of espousalphobia, fear of marriage, is the poor experiences young people have often had in their own family backgrounds. With the increased divorce rate, many young people are hesitant to make lasting commitments. The term “wedlock” seems to embrace all its connotations. Who wants to be locked? But if mar riage is ever a goal in the future, then let me strongly suggest that cohabitation is not the best pre requisite. Although it seems like an advantageous way to test mari tal compatibility, based on my re search on the topic, I believe co habitation actually leads to a higher divorce rate. One reason for a higher risk of divorce is that people willing to live together are more uncon ventional than other people and less committed to the idea of marriage. A 1997 longitudinal study conducted by demogra phers at Pennsylvania State Uni versity concluded that “cohabi tation increased young people's acceptance of divorce” and “the more months of exposure to co habitation that young people ex perienced, the less enthusiastic they were toward marriage and child bearing.” Serial cohabitation should be avoided because the experience of dissolving one relationship af ter another lessens a person’s ability to deal with and resolve problems. Research done at Mac quarie University in Australia found that couples who lived to gether before marriage "separated more often, sought counseling more often and regarded mar riage as a less important part of their life than those who did not live together before marriage." I think cohabitation also stems from the fact that people are more self-oriented these days. People know what they want, and they don't, want anyone coming be tween them and their goals. Mar riage means giving a lot up — you have to be willing to center your life around and with another per son. If you ask me, from my slightly feminist perspective, the only thing living together implies is sex without commitment and free housekeeping for the man. It is no wonder men are in favor of it; they get their cake and can eat it too! People claim that you never re ally know what someone is like until you live with them, but that isn't true. Sure, people will learn strange things about their spouse once married, like they insist on dancing naked to Bob Marley, and sometimes while getting up in the middle of the night to cook spaghetti. But no matter who you marry, there are always going to be a few personal flaws; no one is perfect, and living together isn’t going to prove that any more than spending good quality time with someone. We don't need a preacher to tell us that marriage is good and living together is bad. We just need to look at the Statistics of those who .choose 6ne option over the other. The facts speak for themselves. Now young people must choose and live with the consequences. A3 forme', I choose marriage. -J Tara Debenham'is a columnist for the Emerald. Her views do not necessarily reflect those of the Emerald. She can be reached at taradebenham@dailyemerald.com
