Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box3159, Eugene, OR97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online: www.dailyemerald.com
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
COMMENTARY
Editor in Chief:
Jared Paben
Managing Editor:
Travis Willse
E DITORI AI
Media should not
publish photos
of decapitation
Whoever said the mainstream media are full of vultures thirst
ing for lurid front-page gore ought to reconsider their stance.
Al-Qaida terrorists have paraded photographs and videos of
the decapitations of Americans Nick Berg and Paul M. John
son, Jr. for the world to see, but the media, for the most part,
have not played their game. They've shown restraint. They
haven’t put grotesque photographs that will nauseate adults
on page one and they've refrained from putting horrifying
video that will haunt children's nightmares on the 6 p.m. news.
To their credit, they've told us the news of these horrible deeds
without offendingour sensibilities.
Simply put, there is no good reason to publish a photo of a
decapitated human in a newspaper. In no reasonable case
would a photograph like that add to a reader's understanding
of a story; instead, it would only repulse them.
Some might argue that people need to see these images to keep
the tragedy of these situations from sinking into unconsciousness.
Consider this: What about those who already understand the
seriousness of the issue, the terrible nature of these inhuman
crimes? They turn the page and are forced to see something most
people find offensive. Readers can stop reading a stoiy anytime,
but nobody can 'unsee' a photo found to be disturbing.
Moreover, there is nothing trivializing about seeing a photo
graph of a living person moments before he's decapitated. In
some ways, it might even be more powerful. All readers will use
their imaginations, and probably feel outrage at these terrorists'
crimes and deep sympathy for the families of the victims.
The Emerald Editorial Board supports completely the right
of any news organization to run a photo of a severed head.
That's freedom of speech and restrictions would constitute cen
sorship, plain and simple. But we don't think newspapers and
television should show these images.
That is where the Internet comes in. These images are avail
able for those with morbid curiosities or twisted senses of humor.
Many Web sites, including the Drudge Report, have placed dis
claimers and links in front of this material so that discerning
surfers can see or ignore it at will, and little lohnny doesn't stum
ble across it while looking for http://www.sesamestreet.com. This
is the way it should be.
Maybe media vultures have consciences, or maybe they realize
dinner lies on a busy eight-lane freeway and touching it means a
hail storm of angry phone calls and subscription cancellations.
Either way, they've shown restraint and responsibility.
EDITQRIAt.POLICY
This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial
board. Responses can be sent to letters @dailyemerald.com.
Letters to the editor and guest commentaries are encouraged.
Letters are limited to 250 words and guest commentaries to
550 words. Authors are limited to one submission per calendar
month. Submission must include phone number and address
for verification. The Emerald reserves the right to edit for space,
grammar and style.
NEWS BRIEF
Emerald sports changes, begins
twice-weekly publication
The Emerald is continually changing to serve its readers bet
ter. Today's issue, the first of the summer, is the next step in
that evolution.
We're rolling out a cleaner, updated design that includes
new fonts, centered headlines and new mug shot boxes, to
name a few of the more noticeable changes. Also, we've re
moved the strip across the bottom of the front page that in
cluded the weather, contents and "Next issue" box, leaving
more space for news stories. This will provide readers with
more options when window shopping on the newsstands.
This summer the Emerald will publish every Tuesday and
Thursday, from June 22 to Aug. 12, and conclude regular sum
mer publication with the Aug. 18 Law School edition. Look
for special Game Day issues the day before home football
games against Indiana (Sept. 11) and Idaho (Sept. 25), as well
as our six-section September 20 "Back to the Books" issue.
We hope to hear from you this summer. Feel free to contact
the Emerald with news tips, letters to the editor, questions or
concerns by calling the office at (541) 346-5511, stopping by
EMU Suite 300 or by e-mailing Editor in Chief jared Paben at
editor@dailyemerald.com.
— Jared Paben
Yeah, some ^
of the scariest
creatures have
the smallest
^ brains.
Wow, this Bush
guy sure seems
^ scary... ^
Aaron Sullivan Illustrator
BIG MAC ATTACK
J. TOBIAS MONTRY
COLUMNIST
I love Big Macs. I think nice, juicy Big
Macs are the best thing to happen since
Internet porn. In my genius hierarchy,
which is arguably jaded and flawed, it
goes Albert Einstein, Hunter S. Thomp
son, and then the man who brought us
the untouchable Santa Claus of cheese
burgers, the McDonald's Big Mac.
But my obsession is no accident. After
all, through these veins runs an invigorat
ing stream of a Angus steak eatin', fast car
drivin', foreign country invadin', red
blooded tragedy of the American culture.
For instance, I know for a fact that Big
Macs are unhealthy, heart-attack inducing
mounds of lard, but 1 just don't care. 1 also
know that continued consumption of the
Godfather ofgreaseburgers will inevitably
result in my poor health.
Still, I reserve the right in the rest of this
column to be a complete hypocrite in that I
will declare my love for the cheeseburger
but decry legislation that would ultimately
protea it from lawsuits. Let me explain:
In March, the Republican-dominated
U.S. House of Representatives overwhelm
ingly passed a disastrous piece of legislation
called HR 339, the so-called "Cheeseburg
er Bill," which would effectively ban law
suits blaming the food industry for expand
ing waistlines and causing health problems.
House Speaker Dennis Hasten, R-Ill.,
told CBS News shortly after the bill's pas
sage that, "Trial lawyers need to stop en
couraging consumers to blame others for
the consequences of their actions just so
they can profit from frivolous lawsuits
against restaurants."The problem with this
line of reasoning is that this country sadly
includes consumers who honestly don't
know that certain products are bad for
them: Ever wonder why bottles of Drano
J. TOBIAS MONTRY
STOP BREEDING
have warning labels saying, "Not suitable
for Miller Time"?
These same people are probably also first
in line at the cigarette counter, but at least
with tobacco products they get some fair
warning: a label saying the product may
lead to debilitating diseases. The surgeon
general has yet to put a warning label on the
Big Mac, however, and clearly when some
body decides to get that next pack of
smokes, he or she is ignoring government
sanctioned warnings and decades of anti
smoking publicity.
But fatty, generally unhealthy foods?
Where is the fair warning? Given that
overeating is on the fast track to becoming
the No. 1 preventable cause of death — poor
diet and lack of physical activity resulted in
400,000 deaths in 2000, according to CBS —
chances are much of the American public
doesn't know the horrible secret: Some foods
from some places are so obscenely un
healthy that, as was demonstrated in the re
cent documentary "Super Size Me," they can
quickly lead to miserably poor health.
Supporters of the bill say it will protect
small businesses (i.e. places where food
comes to you more than three minutes af
ter you order it) from frivolous lawsuits that
point a finger for obesity and subsequent
poor health. However, Americans have
been eating at "mom and pop" restaurants
for generations, and the obesity and health
problems have never before reached such
epic proportions (no pun intended). So it's
clear that fast food shops are probably the
problem and that smaller restaurants are
safe from such lawsuits anyway. Thus, the
justification seems like a ploy to protect the
corporate food industry.
Speaking of which, did I mention that
Congressman Ric Keller, the Florida Repub
lican who sponsored the bill, received
$22,200 from agribusiness during his 2004
race for Congress, according to
http://www.openseaets.org? Yep, contribu
tions poured in from Darden Restaurants
(which represents several restaurants such
as the Olive Garden and Red Lobster), Out
back Steakhouse, Wal-Mart, Pizza Hut and
— wait for it — the National Restaurant As
sociation! This is probably why the bill is
written to include protection for ANY food
distribution, not just fast food.
Keller may not be all bad, however. For
the sake of full disclosure, he also received
a sizable chunk of money from lawyers —
not exactly the kind of people who are set
to benefit from such a bill.
The moral of the story is that here in the
good of U.S. of A., it doesn't sit right when
the federal government decides that certain
lawsuits are frivolous even before a judge or
jury can see them. In a letter of dissent of the
legislation, several lawmakers wrote that "It
is inappropriate for the Majority to deny
harmed parties their rights in the complete
absence of any evidence that the courts are
not processing the cases before them in a
just and equitable manner."
The bill has yet to hit the U.S. Senate. Un
til then, I'll be eating a Big Mac and feeling
sorry for the poor sucker sitting behind me
who doesn't know fast food is going to kill
him. Soon, he won't have any chance at ret
ribution, anyway.
/. Tobias Montry:
jantnontry@dailyetnerald.com.
ONLINE POLL
2
THIS WEEK’S POLL RESULTS
What was the biggest story covered by
the Emerald this year? (61 votes)
1. Multnomah county issues same
sex marriage licenses 45.9 percent
2. Squirrel fishing 18.0 percent
3. DPS officer committed miscon
duct 8.2 percent
4. Alleged assault by ASUO Vice
President Eddy Morales 6 6 percent
5. Sports arena put on hold 6 6
percent
6. Weiden workshop 6.6 percent
7. Goldschmidt sex scandal 3.3 per
cent
8. Los Angeles Times Editor John
Carroll lecture 3.3 percent
9. Diversity provost coverage 16
percent
NEXT WEEK’S QUESTION
Should media organizations show the graphic photos of
the beheaded corpse of U.S. hostage Paul Johnson?
Visit www.dailyemerald.com to vote.
• Yes — The images make the violence more real
and understandable
• Yes — It’s the media’s job to inform the public,
regardless of how graphic
• No — The images are distasteful
• No — It brings publicity to the murderers