Published since 1915 by the students
of Xavier University
Published since 1915 by the students
of Xavier University
— STAFF EDITORIAL —
Hey, did you just hear? Terrell Owens attempted suicide.
Oops, never mind.
ESPN cut into their regularly scheduled SportsCenter reruns on Wednesday morning to report that the mercurial Cowboy’s wide receiver known as T.O. had ingested up to 35 painkiller pills, and had replied affirmatively when asked if he intended to hurt himself. ESPN’s on-screen graphic plainly read “Terrell Owens attempts suicide” as Trey Wingo updated viewers on the “facts.”
Fast forward a couple of hours, and, lo and behold, T.O. is alive and well, addressing the media with his characteristic smirk, and leaving the press to backtrack on their earlier exclusives.
According to Owens, there was no suicide attempt, just a bad reaction to his medication. Certainly, T.O. is not always the most credible teller of anecdotes (this is the same guy who claimed he was misquoted in his own autobiography), but it is highly unlikely that doctors would have allowed the receiver to speak to reporters if he nearly kicked the can a few hours earlier.
ESPN picked up on the new developments as they broke, but viewers couldn’t help but feel a little vexed by the morning’s unsubstantiated misinformation.
Of course this isn’t the first time the mass media has been overzealous in reporting a story, only to later find that the scoop was bogus.
In February of last year, ESPN jumped on a report stating that the NHL and NHLPA had agreed upon a deal to end the prolonged lockout and save the season. The following day, ESPN backtracked stating that no deal would be reached.
Two months ago, virtually every major news outlet jumped over the latest development in the JonBenet Ramsey case, proclaiming John Mark Karr to be the killer. After about two weeks and one failed DNA test, Karr was revealed to be a child pornographer, but not the long lost abductor.
Even Dan Rather, a veteran of over 50 years in the news industry, failed to confirm the accuracy of a report on President Bush’s Air National Guard record, and he paid for the mistake with his job.
This recent development is characteristic of the “Now, Now, Now” demands of the information age, where time is worth more than precision.
Thanks to the Internet, where stories can reach the public a mere seconds after breaking (and content restrictions are much more relaxed), traditional media outlets feel the increased urgency to scoop the online sites, even if it comes at the expense of accuracy and journalistic integrity.
In today’s age, an increasing number of media outlets feel they can’t take the time to double and triple check multiple sources, because if they do, someone else will get the scoop and the glory.
What does ESPN really care if they’re wrong? There are no FCC sanctions for broadcasting misinformation, and because they dominate the broadcast rights for all major college and professional sports, “the Worldwide Leader in Sports” isn’t in any current danger of losing angry viewers to a competing network (sorry, OLN).
The unfortunate result, therefore, is that today’s media consumers must view news stories in a much different light than they did 20 years ago. Viewers of a news program or readers of the newspaper must consider the stories and reports with a new degree of skepticism and free thinking, as the days of the baritone-voiced anchormen spreading the news of the day as absolute gospel are no more.
Matt Finger
Op-Ed Editor
Ah, sports are in the air. The NFL is underway, the NHL starts soon and you can’t forget the baseball playoffs! Even the NBA isn’t far away and of course COLLEGE BASKETBALL. Glorious I tell you, glorious.
You realize what this means, right? Superstition and cult-like rituals: rally caps and chest bumps, throwing octopi onto the ice and holding your breath for free throws. Hooray for all of our crazy antics and inexplicable goings on!
But, why, pray tell, is our buffoonery limited only to the stadiums, living rooms and Gaylord Entertainment Centers of our lives? How come we don’t free them and let them infect the everyday happenings of life?
Picture yourself, if you will: a humble college student, placed in a small, stuffy classroom, working diligently on a philosophy mid-term exam. You’re going strong but fading fast. There’s a short answer on first and identification on second with an extended essay up to bat. What are you going to do?
Well, you do what every level-headed college student would do: rip off your Xavier baseball hat, flip it inside out and rally cap like your grade depends on it. What happens next? You pick off short answer, and extended essay hits into a 4-6-3 double play to end the game.
Oh, what is that I hear? Nay-sayers in the back claming it was your years of academic experience and hours of studying that gave you the save situation? Well, agree to disagree. But let’s continue.
You get up, saunter down the aisle and turn in your Cy-Young paper. The professor gives you a smack on the bum and says, “Good game, champ.” How cool would that be? Positive reinforcement is way better than getting yelled at: it’s science, baby.
OK, new scenario. You’re in church, maybe because you have to be, but maybe because you want to be. Either way, you just had communion right, and you’re feeling pretty holy.
All of a sudden the alter boy starts the wave. Everyone’s standing up, sitting down, waving their hands and cheering “Gooooooo Jesus Chriiiist” (like that stupid Dayton cheer).
Phenomenal man, phenomenal. But there’s more. You know when someone is pitching a perfect game, and the announcers aren’t allowed to say that they are, and no one talks to them on the bench and they have to sit alone, in fear of the dreaded “jinx?”
Well, that pretty much explains why the smart kids sit alone at lunch. No one wants to mess it up for them. Do you really want to be the guy who kept Susie from getting into Harvard?
I mean, honestly, sports are a major part of human society. No matter where you go, there will always be sports. They dominate a large percentage of our culture and for that matter our schedules.
People are constantly planning their days around games and matches. Heck, I know people that have had Ryder Cup-themed parties, and golf is boring!
So pretty much what I’m saying is to bust out our disempowered sports-related behaviors and set them loose on the unsuspecting population. I guarantee if you give random people chest bumps, you’ll make lots of new friends, a few enemies and cherished memories.
Plus, if they’re cute it’s a good ice breaker, and if you’re lucky you could…go…all…the…way!
As selected by the Newswire staff
1. The day Norwoodians fear above all others
The non-collegiate residents of Norwood are probably used to boisterous weekends, but one has to think that the hordes of drunken kids on a Monday night totally blindside them.
2. Hungover Tuesday
On Tuesdays, campus is usually pretty active, with lots of people congregating and having animated discussions. However, on Academic Day, most people lock themselves in their rooms with the lights off.
3. Slackademic Day
Sure, there are always rumors of people who catch up on their reading on Academic Day, but we here at the Newswire were too busy watching reruns of “Boy Meets World” to verify these rumors.
4. Blown Extra Credit Opportunity Day
Many professors offer extra credit to their students who attend a lecture on Academic Day, but most people ignore this opportunity and end up severely regretting this decision later on.
5. Day of Bad Decisions
Many students decide to celebrate Academic Day in the least intelligent way possible. For example, the Newswire witnessed a Xavier student being arrested for carrying a martini glass and handle of alcohol down Cleneay Ave. on the eve of this past Academic Day.
Recently, there have been copious amounts of half-truths, outright lies and invalid arguments printed in the Op/Ed section of the Xavier Newswire, and frankly, I don’t appreciate it. Let me set the record straight. Consider this a list of grievances, Martin Luther’s 95 Theses, if you will:
1. In the first edition of “Finger’s Quickie” (props on the column title), I would like to inform the author that students never “frolicked” to the pub. The food at the pub is overpriced and tastes like a cross-country runner’s sock. Not to mention the service is slower than the new shuttle system on a Sunday night.
2. In response to Mr. Stevenson’s article on Facebook in the Sept. 6 edition, Facebook has always been “creepy” and “stalker-ish.” This reminds me: the words similar to and often containing the words “creep” and “stalk” (i.e. “creepy,” “creeper,” “creeping,” “creeper van,” “stalking,” “facebook stalking” and “stalker”) have become increasingly overused in the past eight months. As a community, I feel we should avoid using such words overzealously, and save them for truly creepy occasions (i.e. when an elderly neighbor woman asks for permission to dig through your trash at 11:30 at night).
3. In response to “Finger’s Quickie,” second edition style, the amount of “open-minded but not-so-open-minded as close-minded” professors on this campus is absurd. HOWEVER, in defense of a certain theology professor, the controversial Faith and Justice teacher was misquoted by Mr. Finger.
The professor did not say that “under no circumstances was the pedophilia scandal involving the Catholic Church to be mentioned or used as an argument, ever” as Mr. Finger inaptly stated. Being chastised as a student in one of her classes for releasing such a heinous quote the day following the publication of the Newswire, I learned that this was not what she said. And, in recollection, I recall that she is correct.
The professor actually said that the pedophilia scandal was never going to be discussed in the context of the class. I’m pretty sure “not ever going to be discussed” is similar language to “under no circumstances…was the scandal to be mentioned,” but this should make the clarification that the professor wanted. Get it right, Mr. Finger, or incur the wrath of the almighty theology department by which I have yet to be impressed, considering this week I received a handout with stick figures and an article written by another theology professor whom I’ve already taken. Impressive.
4. In response to “Finger’s Quickie,” third edition, the fact that a man in Norwood attempted suicide is a tragedy. The fact that neighbors came together in the face of such a tragedy is a blessing. In fact, you should celebrate the fact that your neighbors care enough to emerge from their homes and are not cold, heartless bastards. I never thought I’d say this, but be thankful you live in Norwood. Not everyone would care so much.
5. In response to “Finger’s Quickie,” edition numero quatro, concerning Miami University and hippies, Miami University is not a “community college” simply because it has a rolling admission that essentially allows anyone who applies to get in the door and frankly has no academic standards.
It is a fine university, at which the beer flows like wine and the popped collars come in several hundred layers. Concerning hippies, I resent the generalization that all hippies have personal hygiene problems and that they are all vegetarians. I know those of whom you speak, and, I agree, they can be annoying. However, I know several others who shower and love the meat. Don’t judge.
6. In response to “In response to ‘Lack of social bonding,’” someone obviously never took a debate class in high school…come to think of it, I never did either, but I sure know how to argue better than you. Mr. Finger simply said that tragedy seems to be the only thing that brings people together.
He never said it was the only thing. Moreover, you cleverly prove his point in your attempt to refute his suggestion by stating, “Sometimes a tragedy is needed to get people focused and motivated on a social injustice and to realize the extent of an injustice or even that it exists.” I’m pretty sure you subconsciously support Mr. Finger’s argument. Students Against Sweatshops would not exist if the horrible reality of sweatshops did not exist. Voices of Solidarity would not have anything or anyone to be in solidarity with if there was not a problem.
Furthermore,Shantytown would not exist if there were no poor living on the streets around the world. As your debate teacher, I give you an A- for effort (because I can…we’re on the +/- grading scale) and an “F” for validity of arguments.
7. Reading the Op/Ed page is time well spent. As Mr. Stevenson suggested, watching the show on the Muskie is not.
Keep up the good work, Op/Ed page. I believe readership of the Newswire is likely up 200% because of your witty quips and not-so-important but highly interesting news.
"Brutus"
Class of 34 B.C.E
I was very surprised when I read the article, “Factual Opinion,” published in the September 20 edition of the Newswire. I found that it is, in fact, quite unfactual.
I am startled that someone who knows the “facts” can hold such an opinion. It is a fact that Pope Benedict was a member of the Hitler Youth at age 14 – as was every other child born in Germany at the time.
It is also a fact that at age 18, he deserted the Nazi army because he could not bear the atrocities of the regime – a risky move for someone who had an “affiliation with the Nazis,” seeing as how all deserters were shot and killed upon sight.
It seems that Mr. Stevenson has forgotten to mention this part of the pope’s biography. To accuse Pope Benedict of being a Nazi is a smidge ridiculous, being that he had the courage to stand up to perhaps the most brutal regime in human history. That’s much more than I can say about my life at age 19.
I would also be surprised if Mr. Stevenson has actually read the comments that Pope Benedict made on Islam recently. I think that if he had, he would find that the comments were most certainly taken out of context. The speech was a dense philosophical examination of faith, reason and their relation to each other in modernity.
The comments on Islam were merely a secondary point to prove that acting contrary to reason is acting contrary to God, and his example was early Islamic violence.
The comments that the pope made seem to be more of a challenge issued to Islamic leaders around the world to rid their communities of violence on the grounds that violence is contrary to God (and Allah). Now I’m no history buff, but I don’t recall Hitler ever speaking out against violence. In fact, the two seemed to be quite good friends.
My only question is why Pope Benedict is under such attack for his comments. He implies that Muslims oftentimes turn to violence to solve their problems, and how do a large number of Muslims respond? They decide to burn down Catholic churches and kill an Italian nun.
Does that not just prove everything that Pope Benedict said? How can we expect to respect the religions of the world when we’re too afraid that they might burn down our churches and take our lives?
Before I criticise the pope’s comments, I would like to be shown why I should, and recent events have given me no reason to do so.
I’m not saying that what Pope Benedict said was the most apt thing to say given the tension between religions; perhaps the Christian crusades would have been a much less controversial example. But can we blame him for his comments, if they, in fact, seem to be correct?
If the Catholic Church reacted to insult the way the Muslims have recently, the whole world would be in ashes. You did not see Catholics burning churches when The Da Vinci Code was released, but that was certainly not the case in the recent cartoon depiction of Mohammed.
Muslim protestors of the cartoon held signs with such lovely euphemisms as “Behead those who insult Islam” and “Exterminate those who slander Islam.” Oh my, how peaceful indeed.
Perhaps we should stop accusing our leaders of stepping on the toes of the rest of the world, and focus more on whether the pope’s comments carry any gravity.
I would hope that the leader of my Church would speak out against such atrocities, rather than lock his door and refuse to speak because he was afraid of hurting their feelings.
The actions of the Muslims will echo across the world, and I think for once we may have to cross the lines of political correctness and condemn those who have responded to the pope’s comments with violence. After all, actions have always spoken louder than words.
Luke Olson
Class of ‘09
Matt Finger
Op-Ed Editor
Normally I would wait a week to respond to a letter, if I respond at all. But I feel that this is a special case, because we will not have a paper next week due to fall break, and because Mr. Olson has presented a terrible argument.
Okay, first of all, Mr. Olson claims that the segment in Mr. Stevenson’s article was factually incorrect.
Mr. Stevenson states that Pope Benedict was in the Hitler Youth (fact), he made inflammatory remarks about Islam (fact) and that he had an affiliation with the Nazis (fact: Olson claims that Pope Benedict was in the Hitler Youth for four years, which to me constitutes an affiliation). Mr. Stevenson made no claims as to whether the pope was right or wrong, just that his history with other religions is questionable.
Mr. Olson asks why the pope is under such criticism for his comments. I would say probably because he made a generalization about Muslims, and claims that they have a historically and presently violent religion. Sound about right?
It is. Blanket statements are a dangerous thing. The Catholic Church was oppressing people centuries before Islam even existed. In fact, and to conclude, I would like to remind the readers that Mr. Olson also says, and I quote, “Can we blame [Pope Benedict] for his comments, if they, in fact seem to be correct?”
Hmm. That sounds kind of like what you’re doing right now to Pat Stevenson, Mr. Olson. I believe the Bible says “judge not, lest ye be judged.” Let that thought fester a bit before you make slanderous, offensive and outlandish claims. Don’t question our integrity with a poorly constructed and unsubstantiated argument.
A Protestant view of papal influence
I don’t really care what terrorists think about what the pope has to say or what they think, period.
I grew up as a Methodist, but I have a lot of family members who are Catholic and went to a lot of masses as children. The problem I have is that so many people around the world think the pope speaks for Christians in general. He doesn’t even speak for most Catholics I know. The Catholic denomination is losing members by the droves in the U.S. because people can’t live like hypocrites. They are also gaining members in droves because of all of the Latinos entering the country, so I guess it’s kind of a wash.
I don’t like the fact that the Catholic Church still tries to gain as much political power as possible in every country it possibly can. I can easily forgive the evil perpetuated by the Catholic Church centuries ago, but the pope still goes to third world countries and tries to persuade questionable regimes to illegalize birth control. Mexico is a good example of that. The Catholic Church maintained tight control over Spain until Franco finally croaked in the 70s. They helped prop up a ruthless dictator. They are basically involved in a lot of crap I don’t like. I am really disgusted with the whole molestation cover up as well.
Another problem I have with the Catholic Church is that priests are simply intolerant and out of touch. Most will still not do things like perform weddings when both the bride and groom are not Catholic. That’s lame! There are a lot of things that priests simply see as sins that I don’t agree with. I don’t think the views of the average Catholic are as radical as the pope’s, and I don’t find the average Catholic person to be intolerant like priests are.
Why is Xavier University providing discounts for students to purchase Maxim magazine? What would the pope think of that?
I don’t find disconnects between the teachings of the Methodist Church and the way most of the congregation behaves. I’m comfortable with that. They don’t spout off about every controversial issue.
They give their members credit for being intelligent enough to find their own way and develop their own beliefs when it comes to the moral issues of the day. They don’t make everything out to be so black and white.
They even tolerate homosexuality, and the official statement of the Methodist Church regarding homosexuality is that the scripture criticizing homosexuality reflects the ancient customs of the timeframe from which the scripture was written, not the will of God.
Jeff Sprague
Xavier MBA Student
A weekly rundown of the Assistant Op-Ed Editor’s opinions on the world
Pat Stevenson
Asst. Op-Ed Editor
• For some reason, people are always saying to me, “Pat, I’d really like to do some leisure reading, but I’m too busy reading for school.” This strikes me as B.S., because most of the people I know have plenty of free time, they just choose to spend it watching MTV programming directed at simple-minded 16 to 24-year-olds. I am not claiming that reading is necessarily a superior way to spend one’s free time, just that I find it incredibly annoying when people make it seem that they would love to read the complete works of Oscar Wilde, but that their circumstances don’t allow them the free time to do so. In fact, this type of person might be more obnoxious than those people who actively express contempt for reading. At least book haters are genuine.
• It has come to my attention that there is a freshman at this university who apparently looks very similar to me. I demand that this person come forward and explain where he gets the audacity to bear a physical resemblance to me, and why he has never asked my permission to do so. It is positively despicable how kids these days have no sense of propriety.
• Dane Cook, who hosted “Saturday Night Live” this past weekend, is wildly overrated. I guess someone who finds the process of thinking to be exhausting and distasteful would appreciate Mr. Cook’s comedy, seeing that most of his jokes regard topics in everyday life that one never really thinks about (fast food drive-ins, for example). This is not to say that Dane Cook isn’t funny, but he certainly doesn’t warrant all the recent acclaim that he is the funniest stand-up comedian since Rodney Dangerfield. A true master of comedy has a healthy streak of self-depreciation, something the rather arrogant Cook totally lacks. Off the top of my head, there are at least five living comedians who are better stand-up performers than Mr. Cook. To name a few: Jon Stewart, Dave Chappelle, Lewis Black, Sarah Silverman and David Cross.
• I guess I should say something about religion in this space, since it seems to be the only topic that provokes any reader response whatsoever. I don’t feel particularly controversial though, so I‘ll just point out that Chris Henry of the Cincinnati Bengals (allegedly) likes getting underage girls drunk. That’s good clean journalism right there.
by James P. Konerman, M.D.
Medical Director/Physician, McGrath Health & Counseling Center
New Vaccine Available For Women To Reduce Risk Of Cervical Cancer
The HPV Vaccine protects women against four types of human papilloma virus that together cause 70% of cervical cancer and 90% of venereal warts. The vaccine is recommended for girls/women ages 9 to 26. It is three shots over a six month period. It gives the most protection to women who haven’t been sexually active. Older sexually active women will still get some protection since they usually haven’t been exposed to all four types. The vaccine is not recommended for pregnant women.
This FDA-approved vaccine is so new it may not be covered by your insurance company. The vaccine costs $120 a dose. The most significant side effect is local irritation at the injection site. Getting the vaccine doesn’t replace the need for routine PAP smears and practicing protective sexual behaviors.
McGrath Health & Counseling Center
(513) 745-3022
Matthew Finger 
Op-Ed Editor
Pat Stevenson
Asst. Op-Ed Editor
The Xavier Newswire
3800 Victory Parkway
Cincinnati, Ohio 45207-2129
On-campus location:
The Publications House,
3739 Ledgewood Dr.
Telephone: 513.745.3607
Advertising: 513.745.3561
Fax: 513.745.2898
www.xu.edu/newswire
