Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 25, 2005)
| Commentary | Today High: 59 Low: 44 Precip: 20% Wednesday High: 55 Low: 43 Precip: 50% INBOX Thursday High: 54 Low: 42 Precip: 30% Exaggerated claims hinder valid argument Let me first point out a few twisted truths I found in Monday’s editorial. The author claims the Emerald had the greatest monetary budget cut so far this year, but fails to point out that the initial budget was so much larger than many other organizations. The $8,451 cut represents only 6.9 percent of the budget. What about the Muslim Stu dent Association, which suffered a 19 percent budget cut? I’m sure the asso ciation felt that more than the Emerald felt its cut. If you take a look at all the different budget changes for this year, you’ll find the cut the Emerald suffered was nothing awful. Also, the author’s claim that there is some sort of First Amendment re lation here is ridiculous. The First Amendment protects us from govern ment censorship. Any private organi zation can censor as much as it wants to without any violations of the law. My general point is that I do agree that the ASUO handled its re treat situation horribly, and I do agree that the Emerald is important to this school and its students, but please do not blow things out of proportion. Rex Davidson Eugene ■ Guest commentary PFC's asinine reasoning not surprising As a University graduate and proud alumni of the Emerald news staff, I was sickened to learn that Programs Finance Committee members continue to wieldnchecked power to stifle free speech and use faulty logic to attack campus media. That said, I wasn’t completely surprised, either. Last year, while I was the managing editor of the Emerald, the paper’s budget was assaulted by the ASUO Executive, which argued that the Emerald shouldn’t receive student money because non-students might pick up a copy of the paper. That asinine rea soning was quickly shot down, however, by a simple analogy: The Executive also recommended an increase for other groups, such as OSPIRG, that partake in campaigns that don’t directly benefit all stu dents (cleaning up the Willamette River, for instance). This year, the PFC had the audacity to call for complete de funding of the paper based on the clear genius of Mason “viewpoint neutral” Quiroz, who made the profound assessment that extra newspapers are left in the Emerald boxes at the end of the day. Scan dalous! From this astute observa tion, Quiroz was somehow able to conclude from one stack of leftover papers that students didn’t read the Emerald — at all! (Quiroz said: “students shouldn’t have to pay ... for a paper that isn’t read.”) I surely hope, for the sake of all other student groups, that this isn’t the defining logic of the PFC. Whether you agree with its edito rial stance or coverage, the Emerald is an award-winning, more than 100 year-old student-run publication that has produced and continues to boast many outstanding journalists. The PFC would be hard pressed to find a finer group of student journal ists. At the Emerald, dedication is an understatement when you are jug gling a full class schedule and work ing countless hours to produce dai ly content. In the end, it isn’t the money that drives Emerald news staff — it’s the paper’s mission of in forming students and providing an open forum for the free flow of ideas (clearly something with which the PFC isn’t familiar). Given that, any fan and fighter of the First Amendment will recognize the obvious absurdity of a govern ment body controlling the budgets of the same campus media that serve as watchdogs to student gov ernment. Is it simply coincidence that PFC has attempted to silence both the Oregon Commentator and the Emerald, two publications with the most exposure on campus, at a time that PFC has come under scrutiny for illegal actions, such as smoking pot and vandalizing private property at a student-sponsored event? Is it not a travesty in the face of American free speech that both publications have exercised their rights to be critical of elected lead ers, only to be attacked by those same leaders at a budgetary level? It stinks of censorship, and if Quiroz, who suggested defunding, thinks he can go through life silencing any en tity that criticizes him as a public fig ure, then I’m eager to witness the day he wakes up to realize he is sorely mistaken. The proud history of the Emer ald spans far beyond the short sight of Quiroz and his cronies. Just ask Drex Heikes or Mike Fancher — successful editors of the Los Angeles Times Magazine and The Seattle Times, respectively, and both Emerald alumni. 1 think they’d agree that Quiroz’s arms aren’t nearly long enough to box with the First Amendment. Jan Tobias Montry was 2003-04 managing editor of the Emerald Editorial: Circulation argument is merely a smokescreen Continued from page 2 beforehand as mandated by ASUO rules. It is now painfully obvious why: Martell knew we would tear his formula to pieces and expose his performance for the farce that it was. The truly amusing thing about the ASUO suggesting the Emerald prints too many papers is that the 2004-05 signed contract between the ASUO and the Emerald stipu lates, “To ensure student access to printed copies of the newspaper, ODE shall distribute a minimum of 8,500 newspapers.” During the months of September and October, the Emerald printed 9,000 papers per day on average. In November and December, that num ber fell to 8,500 papers per day, the minimum amount as set by the ASUO. Yet still the ASUO says we print too many copies. The ASUO is asking us to print less than they have contractually obligated us to print; an amount they admit would fail to ensure student access to the paper. The ASUO’s arguments about our circulation amount to nothing more than a smoke screen; an attempt to cover up their true motivation; re venge for our coverage. The ASUO can threaten the Emerald all it wants, but we will never be intimidated into covering up the truth. Oregon Daily Emerald. A campus tradition - over 100 years of publication. / Introducing The NEW Mac mini The most affordable Mac ever 1.25 GHz: 40GB 1.25 GHz PowerPC G4 256MB DDR333 SDRAM ATI Radeon 9200 (with 32MB DDR video memory) 40GB Ultra ATA hard drive Combo drive DVI or VGA video output Airport Extreme and Bluetooth optional $479 M9686LL/A 1.42 GHz: 80GB 1.42 GHz PowerPC G4 256MB DDR333 SDRAM ATI Radeon 9200 (with 32MB DDR video memory) 80GB Ultra ATA hard drive Combo drive DVI or VGA video output Airport Extreme and Bluetooth optional $579 M9687LL/A
