Election Watch: The Oregon Daily Wilbur
- The ODE (or as I call it, the ODW) has four ASUO-related stories on its front page today, all by Senior News Reporter Nick Wilbur. While they’re all fairly interesting, the gem is Party grievance elicits finger-pointing, which I imagine ASUO Programs Coordinator David Goward won’t particularly enjoy reading.
- Anonymous commenter “J” mentioned some anti-Jared and Juliana posters which had recently been put up (and taken down) around campus. Thanks to an anonymous (well, the submitter used what appears to be a fake name and has yet to respond to further inquiries) submission, we have some pictures:
Commenter “J” also said that it “[s]eems like Jared Axelrod isn’t a fan of the first amendment.” Well, the fliers go against ASUO campaign rules: 6.2C of the Election Rules state that “Any printed campaign material for or against ballot measure (sic) must identify the sponsoring organization, committee, or person somewhere on the front of the material.” And 6.2D states that “Anonymous posters or flyers for or against a ballot measure are subject to removal by the Elections Board or any person acting with explicit permission from the Board.” Elections Coordinator Ryan Coussens informed me that he removed at least one of the fliers. As far as Axelrod is concerned, he’s never struck me as the type who’d be opposed to the first amendment. The second amendment, maybe.
I’ll stop posting under “Someone whose opinion doesn’t matter”. I was simply acknowledging that I don’t follow politics as closely as some people on this blog. Plus, that’s how I felt after I read monday’s article (that Wilbur wrote) about my grievance. I should quit hiding behind defense mechanisms. Anyway, Timothy makes a good point that the Emerald has a finite staff, but why not switch up the student government reporter once in a while? I understand the concept of a reporter beat, so don’t lecture me on that. But, “student government” is a very broad category, and it seems problematic to leave the majority of its coverage to just one person. Plus, Wilbur’s writing style is accesible mainly to those who have a previous understanding of how student government functions. I don’t know how many times I read the first few paragraphs of “Scholarship may breach incidental fee use rules” (4/7/06) before I just gave up and moved on with my life. Feel free to make fun of me for my lack of comprehension, but I would consider myself more that just a “casual” reader of the Emerald. I have some understanding of ASUO jargon, but not enough to always know what Wilbur is talking about. A diversity of writing styles would be nice (and yes, I understand AP format and inverted-pyramid journalistim…but everyone writes differently anyway, and some are simply better than others). I understand there is a “finite number of staff”, but I also bet that there are several students in the J-school who’d be willing to take a crack at government writing as well. It’s somewhat irresponsible to take on more than one can reasonably handle.
When I said Wilbur was slanted, I didn’t mean towards any particular ASUO candidate. The slant of which I speak is a slant towards sensational news coverage. I don’t mean to be too self-referential, but his opinion was definitely interjected into the “Party grievance elicits finger pointing” story (don’t bother pointing out that I’m not really an unbiased source as far as talking about this story. I know I’m a hypocrite). Wilbur basically inferred, and published, an idea that didn’t have a reasonable foundation. He assumed Goward was influencing me to file a grievance, and I understand why, but in the article, he never addresses the antithesis of that argument: Goward and Dallas Brown are co-directors of DDS. Co-directors. They run a very demanding service on campus, spend a lot of time working together, and until this shit hit, may have been considered friends. This basically comes back to the concept of remaining neutral in the elections process. I personally feel that if people want to blame Goward for not remaining neutral, it should be for not filing the grievance, and therefore ensuring a fairer elections process for everyone. I’m not in anyway encouraging anyone to do that, however, since the whole ASUO would have to be held accountable (plus, I wouldn’t want to do that to David). The ASUO needs to distinguish between passive observation and neutrality.
I hope that clarifies somewhat what I mean by “slanted”, because that is definitely a slant of sorts. I didn’t mean for my accusation to sound overdramatic. I’ve been pissed-off lately.
SWODM: I will admit that I haven’t been following the ASUO elections as closely as I might, but if Wilbur is “definitely slanted”… um, which way? Presumably you have some concrete examples of his “journalistic irresponsibility” in mind.
Say it with me now: finite number of staff.
My point is simply that it’s hard to get the full story on a single issue, so to try and do this for four articles at a time seems unreasonable, and important details are bound to be left out, which they were. Believe me, I learned the hard way. Now, is that too hard to understand, or do I need to further articulate my point with a surplus of punctuation marks and some text-message lingo?
“does it seem absurd to anyone else that one reporter is allowed to write four articles on the front page of the paper?”
OMG!!!!111 Whoever heard of such a thing???
I think your name says it all.
Ah, the Oregon Daily Wilbur…does it seem absurd to anyone else that one reporter is allowed to write four articles on the front page of the paper? We can’t reasonably expcect to get four well-researched stories this way, and we don’t. It also seems like the Emerald is placing too much faith in a person who has biases and weaknesses (like journalistic irresponsibility), just like everybody else. Whatever happened to diversity of opinion? Yes, I know that the front page is theoretically unopinionated, but that statement is almost laughable. Wilbur’s definitely slanted, and doesn’t do a very good job hiding it either, if he’s even trying.
Ian: I
For the same reason that the complicated Federal election laws are bollocks. Restriction on political speech, any restriction, is in my mind unjust. This country was founded upon fairly nasty anonymous political speech: that sort of thing made the United States possible. The Federalist Papers are all written by “Publius”, the Anti-Federalist Papers were also published anonymously, the revolution was largely started due to anonymous handbills.
Why should we let any governing body get away with dictating the terms on which the electorate may express political opinions? Even in the inconsequential politics of student government, it takes great audacity to say “you may express your opinions about the campaign in this way, but not that way”. Who are you, Ryan Coussens, (or in my time Courtney Haight and later Andrea Hall) to dictate the how and when of political speech on campus?
This is a microcosm of the problem with campaign finance law, and especially McCain-Feingold: those already elected use their positions to silence anything other than the offical message from the major electoral players, thus enshrining themselves or their toadies in said same positions for the forseeable future. This is usually done using the excuse of “getting the money out of politics” or “removing undue influcence” or some similar lie. How dare the uppity proles for whom those jackasses work band together and influence the election! We cannot have anything other than the official party message! This aggression will not stand!
That’s the same foolish thinking the ASUO Election folks use, and it’s just as deplorable from them. Students are supposed to influence elections, they are supposed to put up posters and try to get people to vote for them. Bribes are different, but if some campaign wants to anonymously call attention to the incenstuous relationship between the Exec and much of the Student Senate, good. It is as unsurprising as it is depressing that Suite 4’s petty tyrants would try to shut down such a thing.
It’s also sad as hell that I have to actually explain any of that.
Then they should conceal and carry. 🙂
I agree. Why should their be any rules at all in the election? Isn’t representing an elected official the supposedly most important contest in the land? The students deserve all sides of the debate – even those which are seemingly “hate speech.” Sure, you may have the balls Ian, but a lot of other kids might be in positions of easy retaliation for voicing their political views, and they deserve the protection from that.
How so, Tim?
Ian: I’ve got to disagree with you about the election rules. Frankly, the rules about fliers (especially the bit about anonymous posters) are odious. There is no excuse for those sorts of rules, and as they’re both asinine and unjust, I can’t get down on anyone for violating them.
Also, if a slate is “tyranny,” then I can’t imagine what you think of established political parties.
I don’t think you know what the word specific means. If you’re going to sling mud, at least have the cajones to identify yourself. The mud will stick far better and you won’t be violating election law.
THis group is comprised of former ASUO members and UO students, past and present.
Also take a look at Jared’s posters, it seems to no where have written whom it was paid for…I am curious if the elections board says these are not allowed?
Who, specifically, is a part of this organization?
Note the name in the small print of the sponsering organization. All posters were printed with this, the name of the sponsering organization. How then are they not allowed? Were not PSST and SAL posters sponsered by an organization? How is this different?
Awww you
Awww you’re like Nick’s number one fan. It’s kind of cute. You should start a facebook group in his honor. (I know I’d join)