Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
Email: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Tuesday, February 4,2003
-Oregon Daily Emerald
Commentary
Editor in Chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing Editor.
Jessica Richelderfer
Editorial Editor
Pat Payne
Editorial
PFC is doing well,
but it’s wrong on
OSPIRG decrease
Editors’Note: In the interest of full disclosure, the Emer
ald has not yet had its PFC hearing. We wanted to review
the committee before our own hearing, so we gathered in
formation for this editorial by questioning other student
groups about their experiences.
Every winter term, the Programs Finance Committee,
the campus group that controls the purse strings of all stu
dent groups, holds hearings to determine how to divide near
ly #5 million in student incidental fees among the various
programs and services.
Many years, the process has been a circus, with groups
complaining about poor communication and capricious
budget decisions. Some years have seen repeated appeals
and recalls.
This year, however, there seems to be little of past years’
problems. Student groups have said that while they weren’t
always satisfied with the amount of money they received—
although most have received increases — they generally
found the process fair, efficient and professional.
From all accounts, it seems that this year’s PFC is knowl
edgeable and professional. We were most impressed to hear
that members took the budgets home during winter break so
that they would be familiar with the numbers. Also, com
ments indicate that the ASUO Executive has substantially
improved communications among all parties, making sure
that groups are not left out of the loop.
Our one concern is PFC’s treatment of OSPIRG. The
story is complicated, but here’s how we understand OS
PIRG’s funding mechanism to work: PFC divides OS
PIRG’s total costs by the total number of Oregon Univer
sity System students at participating schools and arrives
at a per student cost, then multiplies that by the num
ber of students.
This year, however, OSPIRG created a stir. The group re
quested a budget increase and was going to pool that money
with increases from other OUS schools to pay for a new di
rector position in Corvallis, in the hopes of building support
to start a chapter there.
We wholeheartedly oppose such a move. While we rec
ognize there are some complexities involved in running a
statewide organization on a campus-by-campus basis, we
don’t think University student fees should pay for work
done on another campus. When students wanted to start
the PIRG group here, volunteers collected signatures and
put it to a vote, and the students supported it. The same
can be done at Oregon State University if OSPIRG volun
teers so desire.
Our objections to the proposed increase, however,
don’t excuse what happened next: At OSPIRG’s hearing,
PFC members, rightly concerned about sending money
off campus, declared that an OSPIRG director’s visits to
Corvallis — which OSPIRG says was done on his own
time — means that OSU suddenly has an OSPIRG chap
ter. So PFC added the total number of OSU students into
the mix, divided it out and reduced OSPIRG’s funding by
that amount, leaving the group short of what they need
for this campus.
This is ridiculous. Surely OSPIRG employees can
spend their own time rallying for whatever causes they
want. If they rally against the looming war, that does that
mean Iraq suddenly has an OSPIRG chapter, and we
should add their population into the formula? Hardly. OS
PIRG should be funded at last year’s per-student cost —
which didn’t include an increase for any other campus.
So far this year, we’re impressed by the PFC’s profes
sionality and the ASUO’s involvement in keeping student
groups appraised of the process. We hope that OSPIRG’s
budget can be fixed so that it doesn’t reflect punishment
for a bad idea that never took flight.
CORRECTIONS
The cutline for the photo accompanying Monday’s
story about the University Assembly meeting f UO
Assembly, groups discuss war resolution,” ODE, Feb.
3) incorrectly identified Professor Emeritus Thomas
Civon.
Monday’s editorial (“Awed by their noble cause,” ODE,
Feb. 3) should have said the Apollo 13 mission
returned to Earth on April 17,1970.
The Emerald regrets the errors.
-,—■-— ~r
n u m m m m m n m m m u m n m i
Steve Baggs Emerald
Television wins pnpular vnte
Television has always been the more
popular of the various American pastimes.
Baseball has slipped in the polls, apple pie
isn’t what it used to be, and I’ll be damned if
voting for the presidential elections (not to
mention mid-term elections) hasn’t taken
second-fiddle to the more popular “voting”
tor reality television.
Yes, television, in all
its realistic glory, has
succeeded in grasp
ing hold of the Amer
ican tradition and
has refused to let go.
bven more than
becoming an Ameri
can tradition, televi
sion has been over
w h e 1 m i n g 1 y
successful in hold
ing the short atten
tion span of most Americans — so much
so that people will take time out of their
days to call in or e-mail their votes on a
number of subjects. Commercials, pop
stars, movies and daytime television
shows have all been the subjects of this
mass movement of “voters” nationwide.
Most recendy, Super Bowl commercials
and the reality television show “American
Idol” have taken the main stage in public
interest. The Web site Superbowl-ads.com
proclaims, “It’s time to express your opin
ion, vote now! Pick the best ad in the Super
Bowl.” Sadly, to Americans, “expressing”
Meghann
Farnsworth
Just think about it
an opinion has come down to picking
which multi-billion dollar corporation can
feed you the better line. In addition, as
viewership of the Super Bowl has in
creased, the price of commercial “spots”
have (logically) increased.
Superbowl-ads.com listed that more
than 86 million viewers tuned in to watch
30-second commercials costing almost 02
million (and maybe to watch a little foot
ball too).
In addition to fun facts, Superbowl
ads.com offers an opportunity for frenzied
commercial fans to cool their angst and cast
their vote. The site had Reebok’s “Terry
Tate — Office Linebacker” in first place
with 12 percent of the vote, followed closely
by Anheuser-Busch’s “Replay,” with 11.5
percent and FedEx’s “Marooned” at 7.8 per
cent. While Superbowl-ads.com did not
have the number of voters, USA Today
(which set up a similar page on their site)
listed, as of Thursday, 60,466 as having vot
ed on their favorite ad and 22,228 for their
least favorite. Not a bad turnout.
While Super Bowl commercials draw
their own fanbase, its voter turnout is noth
ing compared to that of the now infamous
“American dream” show, “American Idol.”
In a November 2002 article for Lodging
Magazine, it was said that Americans cast
more than 100 million votes for their fa
vorite “idol,” beating the turnout for the
2000 presidential election (which only
yielded 97 million) and trounced the mid
term elections (only 66 million). Sure, 13
year-olds can vote on “Idol,” but does that
indicate that as we age we become disinter
ested in the happenings of our country lest
it be combined with Hollywood hype and
15-minute stardom?
Why do Americans “express their opin
ion” for multi-million-dollar sales pitches or
for the better Whitney Houston/Stevie Won
der impersonator, rather than voting in a
presidential election? It seems that the logi
cal answer would be to combine politics and
glamour while still maintaining integrity.
To the rescue is major cable network FX,
with designs to combine glamour and poli
tics for ratings in a show called “American
Candidate.” Sure to draw out all the far-right
and far-left disgrunded radicals, the winner
of this intensive debate will get the chance to
become a presidential candidate for the
2004 elections. Kevin Reilly, FX’s president
of entertainment, said that he hoped the
show would provide a “power base” for a
qualified “civil servant.” True, those who are
true civil servants wouldn’t consider battling
it out on network cable a real “service” to
the people. But then again, true “talent”
doesn’t necessarily have a bad bleach job
and a navel ring. But hey, speed dialing is
easier than punching holes in a ballot.
E-mail the columnist at
meghannfarnsworth@dailyemerald.com.
Her views do not necessarily represent those
of the Emerald.
Online poll
The poll results printed Monday had the incorrect
number of votes for each answer to last week’s poll.
Here are the corrected numbers:
Last week: If found guilty, should ASUO Vice
President Sen Buzbee be removed from office?
Results: 417 total votes
Yes, he broke the law — 3.8 percent, or 16 votes
Yes, he is a poor representative of the students— 41
Kii ij - - t '^ '' ' < / . ■ / , ''h
t t M I H M I m M M I M M » H H M I 1 ' .
percent, or 171 votes
No, his persona! and professiona! life should remain
separate — 34.5 percent, or 144 votes
No, it’s not that big a deal — 1 7.7 percent, or 74
votes
Don't know — 1.7 percent, or 7 votes
Leave me alone! — 1.2 percent, or 5 votes