Op-Ed
First Amendment in question
Does the public have a right to know what the government is doing? T h e CHRISTIAN MCPHATE m i n d s STAFF REPORTER of Texas congressional leaders have begun to debate this constitutional foundation. Last week, the Senate Jurisprudence Committee approved Senate Bill 966, the Free Flow of Information Act, with a vote of 4-0 and has gone on to the full Senate for consideration. The bill provides journalists with protection when pressured to reveal unnamed sources (like individuals in higher levels of government who finally listen to their conscience); however, a neutral party (a judge) can still look over the “unnamed” source. Currently, Texas takes a “Lippmannʼs” view on journalism and does not protect the free and unfettered media as stated under the laws of the First Amendment. Since the 1920s, the differing views of Walter Lippmann, a writer, and American philosopher John Dewey, have struggled to control the beast of information. Lippmann believed journalists should act as a “mediator” or a “middle man (woman)” between the public and political bill-making elites. In his view, the public was not able to deconstruct the tornado of information twisting forth from the industrial age and growing to unimaginable proportions.
And so a filter was needed to relay the news. “The public is not smart enough to understand complicated, political issues,” he said. “Furthermore, the public was too consumed with their daily lives to care about complex public policy.” It is a view the government finds more favorable. Dewey believed journalists should take the information and then analyze it, weighing the varying effects on the public. He thought shared knowledge of the whole was superior to a single individualʼs knowledge. According to the philosopher, “conversation, debate and dialogue lie at the heart of democracy.” This belief is known as “community journalism.” And it is how society expects journalists to behave. Journalists are the “watchdogs” of government, religion, businesses, entertainment and pretty much anything else that concerns the public. In Bill Kovach and Tom Rosentalʼs book “Elements of Journalism,” journalists must follow nine rules to inform the public with the needed weaponry to make free and self-governing decisions: Obligation to truth, loyalty to the citizens, discipline of verification, maintain independence from those they cover; independent monitor of power, provide a forum for public criticism and compromise, strive to make the significant interesting and relevant, comprehensive and proportional news, and to be allowed to exercise their personal conscience. During the early part of the 20th century (before the Internet), small newspapers around the country dominated the publicʼs opinion with the journalists powerʼs of persuasion and reported and promoted ra-
cial agenda and biased views. Nowadays, large corporations like the Scripps Howard News Service, located in Washington, D.C., control several newspapers across the country like the Times Record News as well as an additional innumerable amount of newspaper outlets. One still must question the validity of the reporting or place a lot of faith in the reporters. Newspaper executives have implemented a number of ethical laws for journalists to follow, including ways to avoid plagiarism and biased reporting. However, a few have broken from the pack, but they have paid the consequences for their actions of deceit. Since the birth of journalism, reporters have faced execution, persecution and terror, including: The assassinations of Iman Yussef Abdallah, an Iraqi journalist; Anna Politkovskaya, an esteemed Russian journalist who advocated human rights; Ivan Safronov, a former Russian colonel turned reporter who confirmed sensitive information about his governmentʼs “questionable” arms sales; Guillermo Cano, a newspaper publisher from Colombia who criticized powerful drug lords ruling his country; and the list continues to grow. “I think there is a problem with freedom of the press,” former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev said at a Russian-German forum in Kaliningrad. And he is right. So as the bill makes it way through the ravenous jaws of the congressional houses, the citizens of Texas need to send out a message to our state government and use a “lobbyistsʼ technique” and demand the passage of the Free Flow of Information Act.
Don Imusʼ firing causes storm
B y now, everyoneʼs got an opinion on the Don Imus scandal. Except me. Iʼve KONNIE SEWELL always COPY EDITOR been a rather indecisive person, and Iʼve always been able to see both sides of every story. On the one hand, Iʼm realistic and skeptical, but on the other Iʼm eternally willing to give the benefit of the doubt. And to top it off, Iʼm a mass communication major. Doing mass comm has been fun and informative, but itʼs also ruined me, in a way. Thanks to my studio classes, I canʼt watch TV or a movie without wondering how a certain shot was filmed or why it was edited a certain way. Thanks to my advertising and television programming class, I canʼt listen to the radio or watch TV without wondering about commercial placement and demographics. Thanks to my writing classes, I canʼt read an article or an interview without wondering what questions werenʼt asked. And thanks to my editing and law classes, I canʼt come up with a reasonable solution to the Imus problem. If thereʼs one thing Iʼve learned during my years in mass comm, itʼs that journalists are generally expected to look out for different or unique angles. Theyʼre supposed to dig deep into the past and show how then relates to now. Theyʼre supposed to be sharp eyed and clever and quick. Theyʼre also generally not supposed to take sides. Iʼm not suggesting that my Spidey senses are more heightened than anyone elseʼs just because Iʼm a mass comm major. It just throws a different light on things is all. I agree that what Imus said was racist and insensitive. Itʼs not the first time heʼs said something like that, and it probably wonʼt be the last. But am I the only one who sees a double standard here? Jesse Jackson, one of the most vocal detractors of Imus, once said he was “sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust.” Heʼs also referred to Jewish people as being Hymies and New York as being Hymietown. Heʼs since apologized, but if itʼs okay to assume Imus will continue to make racist remarks, can we assume the same of Jackson? Some reports claim Imus will never work
again. If thatʼs true, then why is Jackson still active? Speaking of work, what has to be taken into account is what exactly Imusʼ job was. He was a shock jock. His entire time on the radio consisted of trying to freak viewers out. Most people who listened to him understood that. He was a shock jock who was doing his job (and doing it well, I suppose). But can you legally fire someone for simply doing their job? Another popular shock jock, Howard Stern, was severely lambasted for his raunchy and misogynistic radio show. Since his move to satellite radio, Sternʼs doing as well as he ever did on terrestrial radio. Whoʼs to say Imus wonʼt make the same kind of move? And if he did, how much of a punishment would it really be for him to have the same audience, but more freedom in subject matter? Thereʼs the possibility Imus wonʼt take a job on satellite radio. But then, does that mean Americans are more willing to tolerate sexism than racism? Why would both of these forms of hatred not receive the same amount of punishment? Imus was fired. While this looks like a really noble move on the part of NBC, thereʼs always the chance that since advertisers wouldnʼt want to be associated with Imusʼ show anymore, they didnʼt want to keep the baggage. I hate to say it, but thereʼs being a really good human being, and then thereʼs being a really smart human being. No matter what certain people say, this scandal involves the First Amendment. If thereʼs an audience for it, advertisers are going to want to cater to that audience. If thereʼs an audience for it, should they not be allowed to voice their stance and publicly pat each other on the back? But we as a society must take into consideration the idea of taking an idea too far. How much are people going to put up with? How long does it take before a detestable idea becomes a way of life? Were we supposed to stop Hitler only after 6 millions Jews died, or was it our responsibility to make sure that atrocity was prevented in the first place? Were we supposed to abolish slavery only after millions of Americans — black and white — were slaughtered by one another? Iʼm a fan of the idea of combating problematic speech with more speech. But when does more speech piled upon more speech lead to riots and car bombs and plotting and assassinations? I also think people — everyday people watching this all unfold in
their living rooms or reading editorials about it in their newspapers — need to take a step back and realize exactly what theyʼre wagging an accusing finger at, because itʼs some of the same behavior they themselves have participated in. I know Iʼm guilty of it. Iʼve watched a TV show or a commercial and said something of no real consequence, yet out of malice or spite. Iʼve made mean or hateful comments about rock stars and movie stars and other well-known personalities. Iʼve said these things (“Look how ugly that girl is!” “That guy looks really gay.” “What a nasty whore, I bet sheʼs slept with everyone on the set of that show!”) not knowing what kind of people Iʼm directing it to. Everyone has done something like that in the privacy of their own home, or around the best of friends they know they can be frank with. Everyoneʼs had a not-too-nice Freudian slip. Is it right, then, to fire Imus for doing something that happens frequently in homes across America? Is it right to fire him for what hundreds of CEOs and recording presidents make money off of every time they sell a rap or emo CD? Both genres are notoriously hateful toward women. Snoop Dogg claims a black man calling a black woman a ho is different from an old white guy calling a black girl a ho. Is it? Does the context of using the word outweigh the simple meaning behind the two-letter word? Is it bad for a white person to use the words wetback and spic, but OK for a person of Hispanic or Latin descent to use the word gringo? If a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose, then is a slur is a slur is a slur is a slur? If Imus is to be fired for saying what he said, then what about some of the comedians on Comedy Central? Are they included in all this as well? Or even shows like “Family Guy” and “American Dad?” What about “All in the Family?” Archie Bunker was a racist in order for the show to prove a point — but he was still a racist. How does that work itself out? I apologize for including so many question marks in this column. Ever since I was taught not to in my high school journalism class, Iʼve shied away from doing it. But I really donʼt know what to think about this scandal, especially when thereʼs so many different threads connected and knotted around each other, but everyone keeps tugging at just one of them. All I know is that it doesnʼt make being a mass communication student any easier.
THE WICHITAN April 18, 2007
3
– Letter to the Editor – To the Editor, I have some serious concerns regarding the poorly written article that appeared in the April 11, 2007 edition of The Wichitan. I feel that the incorrect information and “quotes” reflect badly on the MSU Dental Hygiene Department. It is quite apparent to the faculty and students in the dental hygiene department that the information has not been accurately presented. However, we are concerned that those who read this article will not see the information for what it is – grossly out of context. I would like to clarify some of the erroneous information. My name is misspelled and my credentials are incorrect. My name is spelled DeBois, not DuBois and I am a Registered Dental Hygienist, not a certified dental assistant. MSU students are not entitled to free dental service in the Gaines Dental Hygiene Clinic. Dental hygiene services are provided as a courtesy for the students. The clinic is basically a selfsupporting facility. A fee for use of the dental hygiene clinic is not included with tuition/registration. The majority of the operating expenses are covered with the treatment fees paid by patients from outside of the MSU community. Dental hygiene faculty feel strongly that any services provided in the clinic be done so at no cost to the students, as long as it is financially feasible for us to do so. MSU dental hygiene students
do not usually perform the services provided. MSU students provide all services legally permitted by the Texas State Board of Dentistry. The patient classification system is not based on “dirty” teeth. There are several criteria for which patients are evaluated, one of which is based on the amount and tenacity of calculus deposits. A patient may have what they think are very “clean” teeth, when in fact the deposits beneath the gingival margins (which in many situations the patient is unaware of) warrant a more difficult treatment classification level. Therefore, we do not just need patients with “dirty teeth.” We need patients who do not have their teeth cleaned regularly. I believe “dirty” and “garbage” were words used originally by the author of this article and should not have been presented in the form of a direct quote from me. We do not “rank” our patients. Patients are assigned a classification based on the criteria noted above. A Class 1 level of difficulty is assigned to a child age 10 and under who normally has little to no deposits. A patient who presents with heavy calculus deposits and periodontal disease is assigned a Class 4 difficulty level. The term “worse teeth” is a very poor choice of descriptors. One may be lead to believe that we are actively advertising for all patients. Notices posted on campus, at local fire stations, and the prison (for guards only) have been posted in an
attempt to locate patients for the studentsʼ clinical licensing exams only. Current community support is so great that appointments for treatment in the Gaines Dental Hygiene Clinic are booked for only two to three weeks in advance. This is done to insure there is adequate time for patients to be reappointed as needed for completion of their treatment. No referral service agreement exists with any area dental “clinic” and the MSU clinic. Many local dentists refer individuals to the Gaines Dental Hygiene Clinic for x-rays and/or cleanings prior to the start of more involved treatment. This is very advantageous for both the patients and the students. The term “dirty teeth” and the poor sentence structure are not mine. The Dental Hygiene program is not up for accreditation review this month. The site visit occurred in November 2006. The Dental Hygiene program has not moved around “a lot.” In 1979 the department moved into the Gaines Dental Hygiene Clinic which was adjacent to Dillard. In 1999, the department (including the Gaines Clinic) moved into Bridwell Hall, where it is located today. I do not believe that two moves in the past 28 years would be defined as “a lot.” Thank you, Barbara J. DeBois, RDH, MS Chair, Dental Hygiene Department