Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (May 24, 2005)
Commentary Oregon Daily Emerald Thesday, May 24, 2005 NEWS STAFF (541)346-5511 JEN SUDICK EDITOR IN CHIEF STEVEN R. NEUMAN MANAGING EDITOR JARED PABEN AY1SJIA YAHYA NEWS EDITORS MEGHANN CUNIFF PARKER HOWELL SENIOR NEWS REPORTERS MORIAH BALINGIT ADAM CHERRY BRITTNI McCLENAHAN EMILY SMITH EVA SYI,WESTER SHELDON TRAVER NEWS REPORTERS CLAYTON JONES SPORTS EDITOR ION ROETMAN SENIOR SPORTS REPORTER STEPHEN MILLER BRIAN SMITH SPORTS REPORTERS RYAN NYBURG PULSE EDITOR AMY LICHTY SENIOR PULSE REPORTER JOSHUA LINTEREUR PULSE REPORTER CAT BALDWIN JOHN PALMER PULSE CARTOONISTS A1LEE SLATER COMMENTARY EDITOR GABEBRADLEY ANNEMARIE KNEPPER CHUCK SLOTHOWER JENNIFER MCBRIDE COLUMNISTS ASHLEY GRIFFIN SUPPLEMENT FREELANCE EDITOR DANIELLE HICKEY PHOTO EDITOR IAUREN WIMER SENIOR PHOTOGRAPHER NICOLE BARKER TIM BOBOSKY PHOTOGRAPHERS KATE HORTON ZANE R1TT PART-TIME PHOTOGRAPHERS BREI FURTWANGLER GRAPHIC ARTIST DUSTIN REESE SENIOR DESIGNER ELLIOTT ASBURY WENDY KIEFFER AMANDA LEE JONAH SCHROG1N DESIGNERS SHADRA BEESLEY I FANNIE EVERS COPY CHIEFS KIMBERLY BLACKFIELD JOSH NORRIS SPORTS COPY EDITORS GREG BILSLAND AMBER LINDROS NEWS COPY EDITORS JENNY GF.RWICK PULSE COPY EDITOR ADRIENNE NELSON ONLINE EDITOR WEBMASTER (541)346-5511 JUDY RIEDL GENERAL MANAGER KATHY CARBONE BUSINESS MANAGER IAUNA DE GIUSTI RECEPTIONIST JERED NAGEL PATRICK SCHMERBER HOLLY STEIN JANA SWANSON ROB WEGNER CAROLYN ZIMMERMAN DISTRIBUTION ADVERTISING (541)346-3712 MELISSA GUST ADVERTISING DIRECTOR TYLER MACK SALES MANAGER MATT BETZ HERON CAUSCH-DOLEN MEGAN HAMLIN KATE HIRONAKA MAEGAN KASER-LF.E KELLEE KAUFTHEIL MIA LEIDELMEYER SHANNON ROGERS SALES REPRESENTATIVES CLASSIFIED (541) 3464343 TRINA SHANAMAN CLASSIFIED MANAGER KORALYNN BASHAM ANDO KATY GAGNON KERJ SPANGLER KATIE STRINGER CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING ASSOCIATES PRODUCTION (541) 3464381 MICHELE ROSS PRODUCTION MANAGER TARA SLOAN PRODUCTION COORDINATOR JEN CRAM LET KRISTEN DICHARRY CAMERON GALri SABRINA GOWETTE JONAH SCHROGIN DESIGNERS The Oregon Daily Emerald is pub lished daily Monday through Fri day during the school year by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co. Inc., at the University of Ore gon. Eugene, Ore The Emerald operates independently of the University with offices in Suite 300 of the Erb Memorial Union. The Emerald is private property. Unlawful removal or use of papers is prosecutable by law. ■ In my opinion ‘Unfair ^ Unbalanced’ Earlier this month, more than a dozen people were killed in Afghanistan during riots that resulted as a reaction to a fallacious and incen diary article in Newsweek, which un wisely relied on an anonymous source. As is inevitable when Americans feel betrayed by the press, this ghastly inci dent has brought the media’s failure to live up to its obligations to the forefront of public discussion. The prognosis does not look good. A decade ago, pundits pointed to the rise of cable news as a sign that people were losing faith in traditional journalism. A few years ago, talk ra dio was the soon-to-be bane of the media establishment. And now blog gers are supposedly going to drive a stake through the heart of print media and the big three broadcasters. All the while, circulation and rev enue for newspapers have ticked steadily downward. I am troubled by the declining circulation of newspapers. Not just because it’s my livelihood, but because I feel it’s indicative of a decline of reading in general. As reading declines, the ability to critically engage a text is gradually be ing lost. Instead, we are becoming ac customed to having prepackaged in fobytes served up ready for immediate consumption between commercial. The decline of the American news paper heralds the death of nuance. Broadcast journalism just can’t cover certain subjects with the same depth and attention as print journalism — the business model doesn’t allow for it. With Internet journalism, the ram pant lack of accountability leads to a corresponding lack of credibility. During this downward slope of read ership, print media resort to sensation alism more and more in a desperate at tempt to keep or increase readership. Or they become the unofficial PR GABE BRADLEY THE WRITING ON THE WALL departments for the media conglomer ates, as entertainment news becomes an increasingly larger part of the news papers and magazines. So the print media have to debase themselves just to survive — they’re fighting for their lives. This uphill strug gle, though, is slowly leading print me dia to a place in which they will no more represent truth than reality shows represent reality. I am glad to see, however, that the myth of objectivity is finally starting to crack in American journalism. The rela tively recent (and relatively foolish) no tion of objectivity is that journalists will simply find the news and report it. If this were the case, there would be no discernible difference in media out lets. If the news is the news and re porters just go out and get it, all media should basically be created equal. But in the gathering and reporting of news, there are dozens of subjective decisions that need to be made: what counts as news, who to interview, which words to use to describe partic ular situations. The reality is there’s very little about news gathering and reporting that is objective. Now I certainly believe that reporters should never let their personal biases conflict with indisputable facts. But a respect for the truth is not the same thing as objectivity. Not by a long shot. As I said, this faulty notion of jour nalistic objectivity is a fairly recent conception that arose partially as a re action to the abuses of the so-called “yellow journalists.” Up until this time, journalists had never feigned objectivity. Editorial com ment was never restricted merely to the opinion section. Newspapers were ex plicitly partisan — splitting on ideologi cal and political lines. If you were a Democrat, you could read your Democratic newspapers. If you were a Whig, you could read you Whig newspapers (or later Republi can newspapers). Even before that, there were Loyalist newspapers and Patriot newspapers. These days, we’re seeing a return of ideologically driven media. We can choose between blue state radio or red state radio. We can choose FOX News or CBS News. We can choose the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. More locally, we can choose the Oregon Commentator or the Ore gon Daily Emerald (though I would recommend both). That’s why I have to laugh when I hear people call talk radio stations to complain about the increasingly brazen lack of objectivity in the me dia. By calling talk radio, these people are participating in the single medium that has been most responsible for the return of ideological concerns in American media. As ideology once again takes a greater place in our media, I can only conclude that slogans such as, “We Report, You Decide” and “Fair and Balanced,” must surely be meant as ironic. As an opinion journalist, the return of ideology in the media can only mean more job security for me. So I have no complaints. Seriously, though, I see this as a pos itive move for the American media. Bias has always been there. Now we’re just being honest about it again. gabebradley@ daily emerald, com ■ Guest commentary Newsweek article reveals hypocrisy and faulty intergrity of journalists nasi weeK, columnist Jenmter McBride wrote an article on a News week story, found to be false, which in cited riots (“The Value of Anonymity,” ODE May 18). While there is not much on which Ms. McBride and I agree, she makes a valid point that there are a lot of things she does not understand in this world. Apparently, journalistic in tegrity is one of them. I’m not sure what it is about journal ists that give them the impression that holding a press credential is somehow synonymous with a “get-out-of-jail free” card, but this ideology is seriously flawed. Journalists ought to be held to an elevated intellectual and scholarly standard for their actions due to the wide dissemination they receive. We are in a time of war. I understand the importance of the press, and that the free flow of information is an essen tial element of a functioning democra cy. However, there is a line that must be drawn between investigative journal ism and unnecessarily putting our sol diers and civilians at risk. Journalists are invariably the first to cry out against the United States’ ac tions that endanger lives; I find it ironic and hypocritical that these same jour nalists have the audacity to blame faulty reporting on men like White House spokesman Scott McClellan be cause he blamed Newsweek reporters for the resulting loss of life. McBride’s reasoning in this matter is devoid of logic and has somehow led our distinguished columnist to con clude the Bush Administration needs a scapegoat. The Bush Administration? I’m sorry, maybe I’ve gotten lost some where in the circular logic, but wasn’t it Newsweek that published an inaccu rate story that contributed to the rioting that cost over a dozen lives? The Newsweek staff made a pro found error in judgment by publishing an unsubstantiated rumor by an “anonymous” source. In my opinion, errors like this make a strong argument for press restrictions during times of war. When issues of national security are at stake, irresponsible news report ing such as this has serious conse quences. Ms. McBride, in her article, mentioned that the Pentagon might be to blame for not responding to Newsweek fast enough to expose its er ror. While I agree that it is a shame that Newsweek went to press, I’m not too surprised at the Pentagon’s tardiness in reply. I imagine its rather busy fighting a war. Also, last time I checked, the Pentagon wasn’t responsible for ensur ing accurate news reporting. And while McBride makes it quite clear that she hopes “this incident will not make reporters hesitant to jump on wrongful acts perpetuated by the Unit ed States, even if the sources are anony mous,” I hope it will. I hope that the next time Newsweek has an anony mous itch it wants to scratch, it will take the time to get the facts straight. Maybe then we won’t be forced into discussions like this, trying to ascertain what went so horribly wrong that 16 people lost their lives. I can tell you exactly what went wrong — someone forgot his or her journalistic integrity. Mandy Dal Ponte lives in Eugene ■ Editorial Students' voices should be heard in conduct code his year, the University decided it was time to revise its Student Conduct Code, and a draft of new rules was presented May 11 to the University Senate. The code is not yet fi nalized. Charged with drafting an updated code is a panel of four students and four fac ulty members termed the University Senate's Student Conduct Code Committee. Unfortunately, it seems the committee’s at mosphere while drafting the new code was not one of cooperation. An Emerald article last week indicated the new rules reflect more faculty than student influence. Among con tested issues were students’ right to legal rep resentation and an array of violation defini tions that could make it easier to find students guilty of code violations. According to student committee member Corey Harmon, “the stu dents made more of a compromise than the faculty did.” Some University staff members have re sponded to these claims that the revised code reflects faculty rather than student opinions or needs. Director of Student Judicial Affairs Chris Loschiavo said the existing code does n’t hold perpetrators of violent crime as ac countable as possible because students shy away from reporting crimes because they don’t want a defense attorney to cross examine them in a hearing. All of these points are legitimate, and it is easy to see the validity of both student and faculty opinions within the University Sen ate’s Student Conduct Code Committee. Less understandable, however, is the fact that fac ulty opinion apparently trumped student in put at the end of the day. it may be expected that students an faculty differ on their viewpoints, but it is absolutely reprehensible that when students are asked to share their opinions on important University policy, that opinion is ignored. There is no reason students should have to compromise their wishes; it is those four com mittee members who best represent the University at large. Ex-officio committee member Hilary Berk man questioned the faculty argument that lawyers can hinder a victim’s likelihood to seek prosecution. Berkman said “what's im portant is that the conduct code process gives students a fair opportunity to present their side of things ... limiting students’ access to procedural rights doesn't necessarily further that goal.” Berkman makes a critical point, but there is little evidence that student arguments such as these have received much attention from the faculty committee members thus far. Student committee member Michael Sher man said that, in general, students Tm the committee did not agree with the conduct code revisions. Luckily, there is still time to remedy these faults. The committee has not yet voted on the entire code. Before that time comes about, the voice of students should be heard, loud and clear, in the proposed changes. EDITORIAL BOARD Jennifer Sudick Editor in Chief Ailee Slater Commentary Editor Steven R. Neuman Managing Editor Shadra Beesley Copy Chief Adrienne Nelson Online Editor
