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