Spinnaker [Distributed: Wednesday, November 15, 2006]

An incident occurred in Los Angeles last week that much of this country's population probably doesn't care too much about: Los Angeles Times Editor Dean Baquet stepped down from his position. Many in the industry aren't surprised by the development. For months Baquet had been publicly outspoken about his refusal to adhere to editorial staff cuts proposed by the Times' parent company, Tribune Co.

So why should people around here care really? A replacement is lined up. The paper still comes out every day. Most people in Northeast Florida don't read the LA Times anyway.

But in reality, Baquet's removal is a morsel of the ongoing struggle that has been within the newspaper industry for years. Newspapers are a business, and they need to make money.

Money comes from ads, which are only sold if advertisers believe people are reading a publication. Newspaper circulation has been on steady decline for decades. So as ad revenue decreases, companies compensate by cutting writing staff.

Since Tribune took over The Times in 2006, 2,500 staff members have been cut, and the paper has seen a 20 percent increase in profit margins each year.

But once again, who cares? Since people aren't reading newspapers as much, why should they need as big a staff as they used to when they had more readers?

People want to know the news, because people are curious beings by nature. And news never stops happening. When a major newspaper like the LA Times is forced to cut down to the bare bones, with only a few writers to cover the same, if not more stories, things get lost.

Only the "big" stories get covered, the same ones being covered in every other newspaper. Local or investigative reporting, which takes more time and resources to accomplish properly, gets kicked to the curb.

What reporter has time to spend months investigating a sleazy official's spending habits of government money, when he or she is also in charge of covering the same government's new public works program?

Getting the facts straight takes time, especially when the facts are potentially damaging to a public official. Woodward and Bernstein took weeks to crack the Watergate story, but they worked in a newsroom with a big enough staff to give them the time they needed to get to the bottom of it.

It's true that many people catch up on current events through television or the Internet. But the 23-second sound bite on the nightly news gives a brief snippet of information, and much of the good sources of Internet news come from stories that were written originally for a newspaper.

The point is that not everyone writes and reports the news, but everyone consumes the news in one form or another. Newspapers should be the place people go to find out more about something, not some glorified ad booklet.

News isn't going anywhere. People aren't going to stop robbing banks or shooting each other or getting married. Movie stars aren't going to stop getting into trouble.

Politicians aren't going to stop being tempted by the potential fruits of their position, whatever their fruit of choice may be. But it will be hard to know about it if the people who have been entrusted to dig up the truth are all sent packing.

Choose privacy over free lunch promises

Editorial

Bargain hunters beware: it turns out there is, in fact, no such thing as a free lunch, no matter how good it may look on a coupon.

There's a good chance that many University of North Florida students have encountered the offending literature before.

It comes in the form of small, brightly colored squares of paper happily handed out by other young people on campus, innocuously inviting the recipient to this or that restaurant for free pizza, free sub sandwiches, free whatever else the kids are eating these days.

In one case, it was a small flier for Subway with a printed promise for a free sub, chips and a drink just for stopping by the restaurant. It declared the offer was a limited engagement of only-so-long-so-you-better-hurry-up-and-get-it. Upon follow-up, though, the business running the operation expected much more than hungry college students showing up at the door; instead, they-in this case, Discover Bank, progenitor of the Discover credit card-were looking for students with an appetite for debt.

Before students can get anywhere near the counter where mouth-watering slices of turkey and provolone cheese await, they are subjected to an extensive process wherein they must supply all their personal information-social security number, employment information, bank account balance-to company representatives before receiving the little blue lunch ticket.

The question becomes one of priorities. To some, the answer is easy: who cares? Maybe they'll send a card, maybe they won't, but the sub ingredients beckoning from just a few feet away are a guarantee. Yet another group, and one would hope these people are out there somewhere, may discover the rouse and decline to participate on sheer principle. Or perhaps they opt to "stick it to the man," falsifying their information and walking out with a free sandwich with no more than scantly-tarnished integrity and their personal privacy intact.

Whatever personal feelings on the matter may be, every UNF student should be aware of what they're getting into before they make the drive out to these promise-making businesses. One would hope that these businesses' deceitful tactics would only engender animosity toward themselves as students realize the ploy, but far too few that are aware of it seem to be aware of it.

So next time the call for "free lunch" comes around, be aware that what's a paltry meal to a student may really be an information smorgasbord to some money-hungry corporation out there.

Democrats' Iraq plans could help enemy

Student Opinion

I'm scared to live in a world where Democrats are in power. After all, higher taxes, socialized medicine and redeployment plans are enough to make any conservative a bit uneasy.

But as much as I disagree with the liberal philosophy of government, I can accept paying a few extra dollars from my paycheck. I can learn to deal with illegal immigration.

What's frightening, however, is that the Democrats in this country have the same war mindset as the enemies we are fighting.

Although they are not even in power yet, the liberals are already making plans for a withdrawal date in Iraq. They say the war is too hard and has taken too long. They say the troops are fighting a pointless battle devised by the simple-minded, uneducated President Bush, and that the recent elections only proved that the majority of Americans agree.

Unfortunately for them, though, the leader of Al-Qaeda also shares the post-election joy.

Abu Ayyub al-Masri allegedly praised the American people for taking "a step in the correct way" by eliminating the power of the Republicans. And in the same speech, he threatened and vowed to blow up the White House.

So let me get this straight. The group that wants nothing more than to see Americans dead is the same group that supports a Democratic leadership in America.

I am not implying that liberals are terrorists. It's apparent, however, that our enemies know that their perverted plans will be much easier to accomplish with Democrats in power.

Pulling out of Iraq will only prove that America is weaker than it was immediately after Sept. 11 when the nation rallied behind the president to defeat those who came against us.

But now, politics have replaced protection and the hatred for the president has overshadowed the hunger to defeat terrorism.

I can only hope Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) can see the dangers America would face if the military was forced to leave Iraq before the job is done.

The terrorists would claim victory, but the war would not be over. The only difference would be the location.

President Ronald Reagan once said: "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

And I'm terrified that generation will come quicker than we ever imagined.

Students: Don't ignore Student Gov. spending

Staff Opinion

Almost $3 million of student money is controlled by your classmates, and in theory, the entire student body. Approximately $2.8 million of student tuition is controlled by the University of North Florida Student Government each year. Student Government is responsible for the allocation of the activity and service budget that comes out of the fees that students pay per credit hour.

The officials in SG control this money because we elect them to do so. We are the ones responsible for voting these individuals into office and entrusting them to serve our interests. We are part of the process.

Considering that the record voter-turnout in the recent fall SG elections involved less than one-seventh of the student body - we're not a big part of the process are we? Only 2,148 students out of 16,084 students voted. Basically, 13,936 students decided not to have any say in how their A and S fee money is being spent.

The SG members serve as the students' voice on numerous university committees that make decisions that directly affect us. The Board of Trustees, the Parking Council, the University Technology Committee, the Faculty Association, the Student Conduct Board: these are just a few university policy-making boards that have at least one member of SG serving on them. Student Government represents the interests of the student body not only on campus, but on a local, state and national level as well. But are they really representing the interests and concerns of the student body?

By not participating in the SG process or following what SG is doing, the student body is shirking its responsibility and thereby not only failing ourselves but those who represent us, and all those who follow after us.

Fee-paying students at the university not only have a responsibility to educate and inform ourselves about SG and the decisions our elected leaders make, but to also hold them accountable for those that they do. You cannot complain about something that you have in no way tried to influence, just as you can't take credit for something that you had nothing to do with.

If you don't vote in the SG elections, then you have no basis for complaint. If you don't attend any of the Senate meetings or talk to the SG Senators, you have no basis for complaint. If you don't read the SG newsletter or visit the SG Web site, then you have no basis for complaint. You've just allowed other people to make decisions for you.

And if you disagree with an SG policy or recent vote, how can you fault them if they've heard neither support nor opposition of a policy, bill or action, from the student body?

As students, we are paying the university thousands of dollars in fees and not even asking who is spending it, why they are spending it and what they are spending it on. That's like throwing money away.

Student Government members take part in discussion about student fees, parking permit rates, parking appeals, tuition increases and more. But how can they be expected to serve the needs of the student body well if the student body refuses to take part?

Student government not only serves as the liason between students and university, they also strive to address student concerns and satisfy student wants and interests.

But how can the governing body of our students be expected to do a good job when we as students don't participate in the process?

Rumsfeld boot shows Bush ready for real change in Iraq

The big winner Election Day wasn't even on the ballot. As screwy as it might seem, the Democratic takeover makes it much more likely Republican John McCain will be the next president of the United States.

That popping noise you might have heard early Wednesday morning wasn't just Democratic champagne corks; it was the starter's pistol kicking off the 2008 White House campaign.

For McCain, the perfect political storm Iraq, corruption and the Foley scandal that handed Congress to the Democrats was far from an ill wind.

The results mean the Arizona senator's maverick ways that irk some of his own party's most conservative members will become a political asset if he wins the Republican presidential nomination. It is his past ability to appeal across party lines that makes him the candidate whom Democrats fear, and have not so privately hoped would be unable to win the GOP nomination.

They acknowledge that as the Republican presidential nominee McCain would be competitive in many states - Michigan, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon and perhaps even California, Pennsylvania and Illinois that Democrats count as their base. And that's not to mention the ultimate battlegrounds, Ohio and Florida.

The election returns provide incentive for Republicans to quickly put aside their intramural differences and unite for 2008, and seem to help McCain's standing as the front-runner for the GOP nomination. It likely will mean money and endorsements will begin to move more quickly to him than would be the case had the 2006 election continued the status quo.

The election has removed George Allen as McCain's rival for the 2008 nomination. When the year began, Allen was the one around whom party conservatives were expected to rally.

Mitt Romney is likely to inherit that mantle, but the former governor of Massachusetts, a Mormon, has a formidable task winning the nomination of a Republican Party firmly anchored in the evangelical Sun Belt.

Of course there is former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who runs as well as McCain in trial heats against Democrats. But the smart money says that when GOP primary voters focus on his support for abortion rights, gay rights, gun control and a messy personal life, his stock will fall sharply.

There is nothing like defeat to make political partisans put aside their differences and focus on what they have in common. GOP conservatives who had the luxury of trying to make sure their nominee was pure enough may be much less picky now.

Simply put, the prospect of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry or Barack Obama in the White House come 2008, with the Congress already in Democratic hands, is likely to be a motivating factor for Republicans.

The Republicans are a hierarchical party. For the last half century, their nominee has been the pre-primary front-runner, usually the vice president or a big state governor.

But Vice President Dick Cheney isn't running; neither is the president's brother Jeb, the governor of Florida. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is ineligible because he is not a native-born citizen. All this left the party without a clear 2008 front-runner.

But the congressional and gubernatorial losses will force the party to focus immediately on 2008, and electability will become a much more immediate concern. That will push McCain to the fore.

He has a strong network around the country, and despite the residual bad feelings from the 2000 GOP primary fight between McCain and George W. Bush, many of the president's men have been signaling their support for the Arizonan in 2008.

During the past congressional campaign McCain was the politician most in demand by GOP candidates. It was no accident that on the day before the election, Charlie Crist, the new governor of Florida, passed up the opportunity to campaign with the president in order to appear with McCain.

Of course, nothing is certain, and McCain's age and health he would be 72 when inaugurated will remain unknown factors. Yet, for at least one Republican, 2006 was a very good year.

Print Edition

DISCOURSE

LA Times' editor firing important to all

Editorial

Choose privacy over free lunch promises

Editorial

Democrats' Iraq plans could help enemy

Student Opinion

Students: Don't ignore Student Gov. spending

Staff Opinion

Rumsfeld boot shows Bush ready for real change in Iraq

This Week

News

Expressions

Sports

Print Edition