PAGE 4
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2014
OPINION www.grubellringer.com
editorial
Acknowledging the elephant T
he Bell Ringer is well aware of the elephant in the room; therefore, we’ve decided it would not be prudent to ignore it, lest it trample upon us. Some loyal readers of The Bell Ringer may be questioning why we have run the ad found on page 3, an ad which may be considered by some at odds with the best interests of our university. To answer those doubts, we would like to invite you into the decision-making process that goes on behind the scenes at The Bell Ringer. The Bell Ringer, just like the student, faculty and staff bodies of the university, is comprised of many different opinions, personalities and approaches to life. In our discussions about this ad, this was
made very evident. What is important though, is that, ultimately, we weren’t simply expressing opinions but debating what it means to carry the news for Georgia Regents University. This is a duty we take seriously, and partiality is a trap we avoid at all costs. As we looked at reasons for or against publication, the greatest fear on display was the possibility that this might somehow damage The Bell Ringer’s reputation as an objective news service. From The Bell Ringer’s perspective, this is neither about animal rights nor our personal views on that subject. In fact, the morality of animal testing was never brought up in our staff meeting or our interoffice emails. Instead, we talked about what running or not running this ad meant.
Griffins meet Simpsons in cartoon clash O n Sunday, Sept. 28, Fox aired its “Family Guy”/“The Simpsons” crossover as a one-hour episode in the “Family Guy” continuity. This could have gone a lot of different ways, and everyone knew of the planned “chicken fight” well in advance, which is usually fantastic and over the top in all the best ways possible. I only started watching “The Simpsons” a few years ago, but despite all the wacky and sometimes crude humor it feels like a more wholesome show, and one where, even in the short time I’ve been watching, I’ve really gotten to feel like the characters are wholly-rounded people and not just gimmicks. I’ve been watching “Family Guy” since it premiered, and originally it was a lot of fun. Stewie was disturbingly evil, Brian was dull but interesting, Peter was just dumb, Lois was a put-upon housewife, Meg wasn’t terrible and Chris was dim but hilarious. Now, however, Stewie has become a less evil plotter and more of a prankster, Brian has admittedly improved much in my eyes, Peter is both crass and stupid, even more so than he was, Lois is someone who can be thrown just about anywhere as needed, Meg gets basically destroyed most weeks and Chris has become a little smarter. The outer characters in “Family Guy,” sadly, for the most part are
gimmicks, with only some of the names having ever had any sort of story to really flesh them out, and some having just been written off as a result, with a lot less impact than most of “The Simpsons” deaths and disappearances. Even the impact of Brian’s death last season was quickly, and rightfully so, rectified in two weeks’ time. So how did this crossover ultimately go down? Well, in a nutshell, Peter did something stupid and angered the entire female population of Quahog save his wife and daughter, so Lois suggested they leave town while things blow over. The Griffins stop for gas only to get their car stolen right outside of Springfield, home of the Simpsons, and in one of the funnier moments, Stewie asks what state and Brian says, “I can’t imagine we’re allowed to say,” a nod to the fact that Springfield really isn’t in a state, unlike Quahog, which has been identified many times over the years as being in Rhode Island. In Springfield, Peter and Homer quickly become friends when Homer buys Peter a dozen donuts, and the two families quickly start to bond, with the exception of Brian and Santa’s Little Helper, as Brian can’t stand the yappy, skinny dog. Things start to quickly go awry, though, as Brian loses Santa’s Little Helper while on a walk, and after finding the Griffins’ car, Peter and Homer go for a celebra-
On what basis would we not run it? This was simple: If it was libelous, if it were malicious, if it were patently untrue, we had a moral imperative not to run it. This, for once, was something easily agreed upon. It seemed the more we discussed the issue, despite disagreements, the firmer our footing became. With the public’s best interest in mind, we must sometimes make hard decisions; for us, that means not censoring our advertisers and denying our readership opportunities which may apply to it. In order for this paper to remain true to its readers, it must first be true to its own nature as a journalistic endeavor and fulfill its mission, as stated in our masthead,
to be “a designated public forum.” For example, in this issue we have printed the concerns of a faculty member who felt our coverage of February’s shooting at University Village was not comprehensive enough. Whether it be criticism of The Bell Ringer or a defense of principles, The Bell Ringer is not only obligated to be responsive to but also to encourage a healthy amount of feedback.
tory drink at Moe’s Tavern, where it’s revealed that Peter’s favorite beer, Pawtucket Patriot, is a cheap re-branded Duff beer. Springfield promptly goes for a lawsuit and wins in a decision that will shut down the Pawtucket Patriot brewery where Peter and many others work. This soon leads to the “chicken fight.” “Chicken Jacob Scharff fight” describes webmaster battles that Peter has had over the years with a man in a giant chicken costume who once gave him an expired coupon, and now almost any time they lock eyes, a huge brawl breaks out. These battles have just gotten more over the top and intense over the years, and that always means they’re a spectacle. This fight was a spectacle too, but it dragged on at points. In the end, to Brian’s surprise, Santa’s Little Helper finds his way home and the Griffins make their way back to Quahog, where it’s said that the Pawtucket Patriot brewery will stay open because, according to Lois, no one’s going to come check up on it anyway. I feel they could have done a lot more with this event, and while the jokes that broke the fourth wall, as well as the cameos, were well done, two of the jokes were just awful, one involving a gas station and the other during the making of prank phone calls in Bart Simpson’s bedroom. I wouldn’t mind if they tried this idea again, provided it’s not as half-baked as this attempt was, and I really hope that the upcoming “The Simpsons”/”Futurama” crossover is much better.
Professor wants better coverage
jscharff@gru.edu
If university administrators or others feel the advertisement run by the Humane Society of the United States to be unfair or biased, we open our pages to their responses. It is one of the stated desires of this university to develop into a world-class institute; if so, then it deserves to have alongside a campus newspaper of equal quality. This is what The Bell Ringer strives to be.
editorial policy Letters to the editor must be accompanied by the author’s email address. All columns and letters to the editor are the opinion of the author. The views expressed in the opinion section do not necessarily express those of The Bell Ringer, a designated public forum. Anything submitted to The Bell Ringer is open to be edited or rejected. However, The Bell Ringer staff gives all opinions a fair chance to be heard. All letters will be edited for grammar and style. If you would like to contribute a column or a letter to the editor, send an email to: bellringerproduction@gmail.com
T
here are several ways those of us on campus receive news about GRU, including The Bell Ringer, GReport both online and in print, official emails and the President’s periodic blogs. Each of these has its place, but the only one with an independent viewpoint is The Bell Ringer. I think it is the unique responsibility of The Bell Ringer to Robert Scott research issues contributor that are occasionally uncomfortable to talk about, with differing opinions across the campus, but that affect most, if not all, of us in the GRU community. One of these is the February, 2014, shooting of an unarmed student by a campus policeman. There have been several articles in The Bell Ringer about this incident, starting with the March 4th edition. Each of these articles ended with variations on “the investigation is not yet complete,” and so the reporting of exactly what happened, who did what that ended up with a student being shot, and more importantly what can and is being done to prevent this type of outcome in the future, has been obscured. This is a learning opportunity that we as an academic community cannot afford to let go. There was a noise complaint at University Village, and in the end a student, a freshman, was shot. What are we doing differently this academic
year, to make sure such an event does not happen again? Are we teaching this year’s new freshmen about what happened last year, and what to do and not to do, differently from what we have taught new freshmen in the past? Was this shooting the act of a rogue policeman who violated his training, or was it a response that was fully in consonance with our campus security policies and practices? What did our internal investigation conclude? Are there lessons our campus police have learned as well, and is their incident response training any different this year from last year? Campus safety is the job of everybody, including faculty members like me. George Santayana famously wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” As a community of students and scholars, we must remember this incident from our very recent past, all of us learn from it, and absolutely ensure we do not repeat it – not the institution, not our students, not the campus police. I am writing to ask that The Bell Ringer explore what happened seven months ago, what we have all learned from the incident and how we are all working together to make sure such an incident never again ends up with an unarmed student being shot by a campus policeman.
Dr. Robert M. Scott, Mathematics Department Acting President of the GRU Chapter of the American Association of University Professors rscott5@gru.edu
Power outage sparks thoughts about net neutrality
O
n Saturday, in Phoenix, Ariz., where I live, we had an incredible thunderstorm that, amongst other things, knocked out cable TV and Internet service to a large number of households throughout the city. Beyond the fact that Arkansas had just gone up on Texas A&M 28-14 and I never saw the end of the game, the loss of Internet access, other than what I could get on my ancient iPhone 4, was a major annoyance that became a bit of a crisis. With no more college football to watch, I suggested to my wife that we should watch some Netflix. NOPE. Then I wanted to complain to Twitter about this entertainment crisis. NOPE. We even thought about ordering pizza - but because I use Domino’s online app and don’t know the local shop’s phone number, NOPE. We often forget how much we use the Internet until we don’t have it, and during those four hours where I felt adrift without access,
I started to think about what life without the Internet, all the time, would be like. This train of thought was suggested because there is a matter of U.S. governmental policy, itself masked in the kind of mind-numbing legal distinctions and bureaucratic jargon that often accompany Andrew Pilsch such matters, contributor that currently threatens the very core of our ability to freely and openly use the Internet. This policy, being debated by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), will govern the future of a carrier-neutral Internet, and has been debated since 2003 under the name “net neutrality.” In essence, net neutrality refers to the debate about legally establishing the content neutrality
of the Internet. As it stands under current laws, your ISP can charge certain websites or charge you as a subscriber more to access content on certain websites. Do you watch a lot of Netflix, as I do? In the near future, you could start to pay your ISP (presumably a cable company such as Comcast or Cox) more for the privilege of using that website. Additionally, cable companies could refuse to connect you to a website at anything but the slowest speeds (do you remember dial-up?). This condition results from a 2002 decision by the FCC. To encourage the development of broadband Internet, the FCC defined the Internet as an “information service” instead of a “telecommunication service.” This means that the Internet is not subject to the government’s ability to regulate interstate commerce, despite the FCC regulating the ISPs as though they were. This condition continued until companies such as Netflix and Hulu began to offer video “on
demand” over the Internet, which directly competes with cable companies’ core business: Charging you too much for TV. The issue came to head when an appeals court issued a ruling in January resolving a 2011 case brought by Verizon against the FCC. The court ruled that the FCC has no right to regulate the Internet in the manner it did but suggested that the FCC must rethink its regulatory strategy, as it should be in charge. Since the ruling, the FCC has been debating rules and accepting public comments, of which the most in agency history were received over this issue. A decision about net neutrality should be forthcoming. The concerns here are myriad, but the debate about net neutrality is often framed in the press as a dispute between two industries: cable companies who deliver Internet content and the web companies who make this content. In fact, though, a non-neutral network is a threat to the very nature
of the Internet as we know it and we use it, not just the companies who make money off of our web use. The ability to use the Internet bandwidth you pay your ISP for in the way you see fit is currently threatened. Unlike Arizona thunderstorms, a non-neutral Internet threatens to knock us all offline, forever. As I twitchily waited for my phone to update football scores and watched the rain drive down in sheets, I realized that regardless of your views on how the Internet is changing us, spending time without Internet access reminds us that we have all been changed by the Internet. A decision on net neutrality that favors cable companies could threaten to be the biggest thunderstorm of all, disconnecting the Internet that has become an increasingly transparent part of our everyday existence.
Dr. Andrew Pilsch, assistant professor of English at Arizona State University andrew@pilsch.com