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
Monday, May 10,2004
Oregon Daily Emerald
COMMENTARY
Editor in Chief:
Brad Schmidt
Managing Editor:
Jan Tobias Montry
Editorial Editor:
Travis Willse
EDITORIAL
Unscrupulous
journalists
betray public
Los Angeles Times Executive Editor John Carroll deliv
ered a scathing critique of modern "pseudo-journalism"
at the School of Journalism and Communication's annual
Ruhl Lecture last week. The words were inspiring — at least
for journalists who want to root out and destroy the trend
— and frightening at the same time.
Probably the most important and uplifting aspect of
Carroll's speech was his dedication to and fierce defense
of the American public that many newspaper reporters
and editors display across America, although those who
buy into the "liberal media" myth will disagree. Carroll's
primary examples of such dedication were current events
at The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times.
Specifically, Carroll pointed out that The New York Times
staff members, who were already disgruntled about what
they viewed as a bureaucratic management style, demanded
accountability at the highest levels when Jayson Blair was
exposed for his fabrications and dirty journalistic tactics.
Carroll even criticized his own paper to demonstrate
what he saw as many journalists' strong desire to support
traditional journalistic goals of accurately informing the
public. Before Carroll was editor, a scandal raged at the Los
Angeles Times when it was revealed that the paper, which
had monetary interests in the newly constructed Staples
Center, was involved in secret deals to cover the arena in
exchange for advertising.
ngam, uie sum aernanaea accountaDinty, ana juu stan
members signed a letter calling for an internal investigation.
While these two unfortunate events may paint a bleak pic
ture of ethics at America's most prestigious newspapers, the
simple fact that the staffs of these newsrooms put journalistic
credibility above business and profits is the saving grace
But much of Carroll's lecture was focused on "pseudo
journalists, " and he called out what he views as a tendency
among many other media outlets, namely Fox News
Channel, to mislead the public.
To this end, Carroll used two specific examples to expose
the trend. The first was a study showing that at least 80 per
cent of Fox News Ghapnel's viewers believed at least one of
the following misconceptions: That weapons of mass de
struction had been found in Iraq, that a connection between
al-Qaida and Iraq had been found or that the war in Iraq
was widely supported around the world. He added that the
number was 57 percent lower for those who received news
primarily from public news broadcasting.
The second example was a blatant demonstration of the
bias that Fox News Channel commentator Bill O'Reilly
uses to accomplish the "gotcha!" spirit of his show, and
subsequently draws in viewers who are not interested in
real news. Carroll described an incident in November
2003 when O'Reilly attacked the Los Angeles T imes for ex
posing then-California governor candidate Arnold
Schwarzenegger's history of sexual harassment. On the
show, O'Reilly said "Do you think the L.A. Times sent a
squad of reporters to Arkansas to investigate Bill Clinton's
problems with women? No, it did not."
Carroll pointed out that O'Reilly's critique was not only
off-base but completely inaccurate; The Los Angeles Times
printed a 4,000-word exclusive on Dec. 21, 1993 about
Clinton's "troopergate" sex scandal.
Evidently, as Carroll jokingly noted, Fox News Channel
employees don't have access to computers, or they may
have been able to do a Lexis-Nexis search. O'Reilly never
apologized or acknowledged his error.
Sadly, most who shared O'Reilly's view were more con
cerned about whether the newspaper had an agenda than the
reality that the potential new governor had a history of harass
ment. Carroll responded to these enraged people in an edito
rial, writing "At the risk of offending still more readers, I'll say
that if you're put off by investigative reporting this probably
won't be the right newspaper for you in the years to come"
So if the "news" produced by these Fox-like pseudo
journalists is so unethical and deceptive, why does it at
tract such large audiences? Carroll said today's viewers and
readers are so angry about one thing or another that the
adversarial system of media works to draw them in to the
circus. And that makes sense, especially if you look at the
weekly Nielsen Media Research ratings: Bill O'Reilly and
Hannity and Colmes all consistently rotate to make the
top two. The only problem is these talking heads don't do
news; they do controversy, fear and the worst kind of
tabloid journalism imaginable.
And ultimately, the public is the sucker.
Eric Laytonillustration
Can I get you anything else?
Even after you break the law, it's still on
your side. I always think people who are
too self-centered to follow the law should
just be kicked off the island. Unfortunately
in the United States, we not only keep
these people around, we cater to them.
You can find a great example of this in
Oregon right now, with the installation of
flat-panel television screens in the Oregon
State Correctional Institution. I'm glad to
hear that we're making conditions better
in our prisons for felons, because no mat
ter how many laws one breaks, a man
should always have the right to watch tele
vision in his own room. Give me a break.
If you compare an inmate's television
viewing situation to that of an "elite" liv
ing situation, such as a sorority, you may
be surprised to find out who often has the
better setup: Inmates. Maybe sororities
could get their chapter headquarters to
spring for flat-panels in every room if they
started to stab each other in the necks with
pencils while arguing during viewings of
"The OC" or "The Bachelor." It seems to
have worked well for inmates!
Guards claim that prisoners are under
much better behavior now that they aren't
gathered in large groups to watch televi
sion. Several times, inmates were sent to
the emergency room after fights broke out
concerning what channel to watch. Per
sonal televisions now prevent these fights
from occurring. It seems like the logic that
most people learned in kindergarten could
have worked just as well: If you can't be
have yourself while watching television,
then no television for you.
Marissa Jones
Cry me a river
But the program isn't promoting bad
behavior. In fact, the inmate must have a
good behavior record in order to receive
the flat-panel installation, and it's not free.
The going rate for a 7-inch flat panel tele
vision at the Oregon State Correctional In
stitution is $300. Corrections officials are
quick to point out that the televisions
aren't being bought with taxpayers' mon
ey, but through a no-cash incentive pro
gram in which inmates are paid for their
prison jobs. As a taxpayer, I felt a lot better
after hearing this. I mean, I am really glad
they use their "hard-earned" money to pay
for their entertainment, but I have a better
idea: How about they start using it to pay
for their room and board, which the tax
payers do fund?
Another group of lawbreakers this coun
try continues catering to is illegal immi
grants. Our sister state to the south, Cali
fornia, had the great idea to give driver's
licenses to illegal immigrants last year. For
tunately, the new governor "terminated"
this law upon his arrival. Unfortunately,
California wasn't the first state to come up
with this brilliant concept. In fart, it was
the fifteenth.
But now a new state wants to join the
pack: Florida. Jeb Bush seems to grasp the
concept of "illegal," yet he still supports
the law. The governor commented, "We
shouldn't allow them to come into the
country to begin with." And this is the
point where every argument should end.
Illegal immigrants have broken the law by
entering the country without going
through the immigration process. By al
lowing them to stay, the government un
dermines all of those who put in the effort
to legally obtain their citizenship. Jeb con
tinued his comment by saying, "But once
they're here, what do you do?" Hmm ...
maybe send them back? The answer is def
initely not to make rules to condone their
illegal behavior.
"Do you basically say that they're lepers
to society? That they don't exist?" Jeb asks.
"A policy that ignores them is a policy of
denial." And a policy that acknowledges
their rights in a country they have entered
illegally is a policy of stupidity. Why on
earth would you give a legal document to
an illegal citizen?
Many believe that licensing illegal im
migrants will make the roads safer. Sen.
Rudy Garcia, R-Fla., made the argument
that these people often drive children to
school or themselves to work without a li
cense. By doing this, they are endangering
their life and the lives of others, because
they may not know the rules of the road.
Turn to JONES, page 3
ONLINE POLL
Each week, the Emerald
publishes the results of the
previous poll and the coming
week’s poll question. Visit
http://www.dailyemerald.com
to vote.
Last question:
Squirrel fishing?!
Results: 123 votes.
• Awesome!!
52.0 percent or 64 votes.
• Happy squirrels!!
16,2 percent or 20 votes. ..
• Cruel!!
12.2 percent or 15 votes.
• Stupid!!
9.8 percent or 12 votes.
• What is that?!
9.8 percent or 12 votes.
This week; Whatdo,you tbit
of the Atkins diet?
Choices:
It’s great... It works!;
It’s awful... and unhealthy;
It’s nothing more than a
moneymaking scheme;
ik Jt’s better th9n exercise!, „.