Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online: www.dailyemerald.com
Wednesday, October 8,2003
Oregon Daily Emerald
COMMENTARY
Editor in Chief:
Brad Schmidt
Managing Editor:
Ian Tobias Montry
Editorial Editor:
Travis Willse
EDITORIAL
New arena site
makes sense,
saves money
The University went forward this past weekend with
what some may consider the last piece of this campus's in
tercollegiate arms race. Having spent dose to $ 100 million
on Autzen Stadium renovations in 2002, an additional
$ 100 million — and that's a rough estimate — for a new
athletic arena shouldn't come as much surprise.
What may have come as a shock, however, was the loca
tion where the University chose to locate the facility that will,
in 2006, replace McArthur Court. After starting with a list of
about 20, and then whitding it down to a more condensed
assortment of seven locations, University offkials announced
Saturday that Howe Field would house the new arena.
A few weeks prior to the announcement word began cir
culating that Howe Field had become the likely choice. At
the time, no one really knew if the rumors were true. On
Tuesday, the Editorial Board had the chance to sit down
with University Vice President for Administration Dan
Williams, who oversees the athletic department. We now
know a little more, and here's what he had to say:
After seven serious locations were selected to house
the new arena, one quickly rose to the top in the eyes of
many University officials. Williams' Bakery, with its close
proximity to campus and Franklin Boulevard, emerged
as the top choice.
Ihe arena would be situated there, were it not for a $20
million selling price the bakery requested. As Williams
said, the University was looking to buy a piece of land;
Williams' Bakery was looking to sell a business.
With the red tape associated with the buyout, Williams
said, the endeavor became beyond reasonable. Tlie bakery
eventually backed out of negotiations.
After the bakery location, Williams said, University per
sonnel began looking at the courthouse site and the two Uni
versity-owned properties, Autzen Stadium and Howe Field.
City officials were helpful during the process, Williams
said, but they couldn't make assurances that things would
work out at the courthouse site. On top of that, buying
land near Eighth Avenue could cost between $15 million
and $20 million.
r
When companng the two University properties, Howe
Field seemed to be just as favorable as Autzen Stadium. But
with the Howe Field site, the University could build much
needed parking and keep the facility in the heart of campus.
And thus, Flowe Field was chosen.
Beyond that, the Editorial Board learned a handful of
other tidbits that serve as an interesting subplot to the story.
When the athletic department announced that it had
donor support for a new arena, few people — at least in
this office — questioned whether it would be built. Turns
out University President Dave Frohnmayer only gave the
go-ahead for the arena after approving nine or 10 individu
als to donate toward the project who would also donate
money for academics. The University, in the midst of a
$600 million campaign — money of which went toward
the Autzen renovation and will go to the new arena — did
n't want donors only committing funds to athletics.
While a final cost for the project has yet to be deter
mined, Williams gave assurances that the relocation costs
of Howe Field, the nearby tennis courts and the outdoor
recreation facilities will be included in the total. Assur
ances, he stressed, are not promises, however.
All in all, Williams made a good pitch as to why Howe
Field should be the home of the new arena. The relocation
costs should be less than a quarter of those to purchase oth
er land, more parking will be added on campus, the new
softball field could be closer to other athletic facilities at
Autzen Stadium and the arena will be centralized.
The only downside, it seems, will be the noise and road
closures during construction, along with potential traffic
congestion in the South University neighborhood the are
na may attract.
We, like University officials, wanted to see the new arena
go at the Williams' Bakery site. But considering that could
have cost about $ 15 million extra — more than 10 percent
of the total project — we agree that it wasn't feasible.
On the other hand, considering more than $ 100 million
has been "secured" for the arena from just a handful of
sources, what would have been another couple of million
from each party?
Well, that's just talk now. So, we applaud University ad
ministrators' decisions. They made the right choice; pro
vided the new facility isn't named Swoosh Arena.
Eric Layton Illustrator
J
CALLING
MR. LIPPMAN
The great journalist and thinker Wal
ter Lippman put forth a new and inno
vative concept in news reporting 80
years ago, and our world may never be
the same. In the view of this American
genius, the common folk were too 'dem
stupid' to understand or to be involved
in the complex issues of their world. Be
cause he believed participatory democ
racy was no longer possible, Lippman
proposed a completely objective press
staffed by professionals whose job was
not to engage the public, but simply to
inform them. To do this, reporters from
then on were expected to ignore all per
sonal beliefs and professional pressures
in order to record and relate the truth ex
actly as it occurred in the real world.
Today, 70 percent of the population
believes that Saddam Hussein was di
rectly linked to the Sept. 11 attacks.
Whether you believe the polls or not,
journalism is in a more serious crisis
now than it ever was in Lippman's time.
The halcyon days of gritty, hard-nosed
journalists diligently protecting the pub
lic from political wrongdoing are dead
and gone. Instead of serving as a "Fourth
Estate" in our system of government,
journalism has become the fourth echo
of the insipid tripe repeatedly blathered
by the same questionable sources. Jour
nalists feed from their official sources'
hands, flutter back to their little nests
and parrot the same rubbish right back
to the people. Then they ask why every
one believes the same silly untruths.
Today's journalism is a lot of hugging,
kissing, schmoozing, coattail-riding and
repeating of official reports as if they are
handed down from the heavens by God
himself. The Project for Excellence in
Journalism recently found that the use
of stories from wire services has doubled
in the past five years.
On top of that, a study by Fairness
and Accuracy in Reporting of seven pop
ular national news programs found that
"viewers were more than six times as
likely to see a pro-war source as (they
were) one who was anti-war; with U.S.
guests alone, the ratio increases to 25-to
1." A stunning 68 percent of American
informational sources were military of
ficials, and only 3 percent of the U.S.
sources opposed the war while 25 per
cent of the general public dissented.
Joe Bechard
Cultural obstetrician
In a 2002 study, Fairness and Accuracy
in Reporting found the average Ameri
can interview source for ABC, CBS and
NBC evening news programs to be 92
percent white, 85 percent male and 75
percent Republican, while independents
represented a meager 1 percent of the to
tal sources used.
But the situation gets uglier. In the
words of investigative journalist Greg
Palast, investigative reports "are risky,
they upset the wisdom of the estab
lished order and they are very expensive
to produce."
As journalism becomes increasingly a .
product not of public service but of
profit motivation, investigative reports
become less practical. The fear of law
suits, losing sources and upsetting spon
sors subconsciously, or even conscious
ly, affect the way a story is covered. As
the Project for Excellence in Journalism
reports, 54 percent of news directors
have been pressured to do stories about
their sponsors.
The PEJ also recently claimed that in
vestigative reporting decreased 60 per
cent in local television markets during
the last six years. The study showed that
hard news stories fell 33 percent in the
last twenty years, while lifestyle and en
tertainment stories increased nearly
twofold.
The devolving definition of "news" is
n't the only thing threatening the very
notions of democracy, however. The
profession itself is being redefined. The
more journalists become television
stars, the less likely they are to bite the
hands that feed them. With every ap
pearance, the star shines a little brighter
and can make a little more money. In a
survey of Washington-based journalists,
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
found that 31 percent of them earn
$150,000 or more.
Journalists don't become stars by
challenging those they work with or by
upsetting the status quo, but if you truly
believe in democracy, this is exactly
what you should want journalists to do.
Contact the columnist
at josephbechard@dailyemerald.com.
His opinions do not necessarily represent
those of the Emerald.