Gun Shy

Is the Emerald's coverage of the Dixon case an unnecessary foray into self-censorship?

At least once a year the Emerald rises above its own mediocrity and spawnsa good old-fashioned controversy. In recent years, those controversies havemost often centered on the paper's allegedly racially-biased reporting.Most recently, an Emerald editorial said that the student unions weredefeating their own goal of bringing a message of tolerance and an opendialogue about race to the campus by practicing tacit exclusionism in notwelcoming non-minorities into the EMU's "multicultural wing." A storm ofprotest from the student unions followed, resulting in an apologeticeditorial from the Emerald Editor-in-chief, staff members resigning intears and the creation of a position devoted solely to "multiculturalreporting."

Before that, the ire of the student unions was aroused by the Emerald'scoverage of the story of Kylee Justin Brooks, who was charged with rapewhile a University student and member of the football team. The Emeraldused police mug shots of Brooks, who is African-American, in the coverageof his story. Again, advocates for students of color on campus were up inarms. Many felt the Emerald's coverage of the Brooks case was biased andthe use of his mug shot was unfair in that it perpetuated a stereotype ofAfrican-American males as thuggish rapists. For days afterwards, letters tothe editor of the Emerald were dominated by students decrying the paper'streatment of the story.

In 1999, times have changed while somehow staying the same. This year'sEmerald controversy also revolves around an African-American studentaccused of wrong-doing, but the groups that have traditionally raised thestandard against reports critical of students of color are curiouslysilent. On the other hand, the Emerald may very well be guilty of the samesort of censorship it defended itself against in the past.

Michael Dixon is a 19-year-old University student and a senator - occupyingStudent Senate seat #17 - which puts him squarely in the territory of apublic official. It is because of this that the Emerald decided toundertake a public records search of Dixon - as well as all othercandidates for elected office who made it through the ASUO primaries - tosee what, if any, crimes he had been accused or convicted of in Lane County.What they found was startling: Dixon was charged with two counts ofburglary and one count of theft. He later pleaded guilty to all counts. TheEmerald went ahead with the story with the vim and vigor of Woodward andBernstein, exposing the literal trials and tribulations of Michael Dixon.

Strangely, though, the editors of the Emerald, who saw fit to make Dixonthe subject of no less than four articles - one of which was an editorialcalling for his resignation - never printed a mug shot of the man they werelambasting.

"We didn't even talk about it," said Emerald Editor-in-chief Ryan Frank inan interview with the Commentator. Frank seems to be defending theEmerald's stance regarding the use of Dixon's mug shot as not so much adecision as a non-decision, rather than the result of years ofnot-so-subtle intimidation. Of course, later in the same interview, Franksaid that he did discuss use of a photo with Jason George, the Emeraldreporter covering the Dixon case.

"Jason [George] asked if we were going to use a photo," said Frank. "Ithought he was talking about an action shot of [Dixon] walking down thestreet." George's question was as far as the initial discussion of usingDixon's mug - or, indeed, any photo of Dixon - went.

But Frank goes on to say that logistic factors impeded the Emerald frommaking use of a Dixon photo in later stories. "It was a late story," Franksaid of Dixon's subsequent trial. He also feels that the use of mugs shouldbe reserved for use in stories involving people who are deemed a physicalthreat to the community. "Personally, I think that if it's someone whoposes a physical danger, it's a different story," he said.

The last ten years of Emerald coverage seems to back Frank up. Since 1989,the paper has reserved the use of mug shots for instances of assault, suchas the case of Kylee Justin Brooks and charges filed last year againststudent athletes Saladin McCullough and Akili Smith stemming from a barfight. The standard seems to be more arbitrary when dealing withnon-students, but this hardly applies to Dixon.

The discussion in the Emerald offices that led to the decision to not useDixon's mug shot is immaterial to Huy Ong and Dairmuid Houston, two studentleaders who are also students of color. "I don't read into it," saidHouston, the co-director of the Black Student Union (BSU), of which Dixonis a member. "As far as anything [race-related], I don't see it."

"I would have some issues with [the use of Dixon's mug shot]," said Ong,Programs Advocate for the MultiCultural Center (MCC). Ong, who agreed tospeak only as a student and not as a spokesperson for the MCC, said that hesometimes questions the motives for use of mug shots in situationsinvolving minorities, but that in Dixon's case he didn't really have anopinion one way or the other. Ong's only criticism of the Emerald is thatit hasn't shown students' Dixon's good side. "I don't see the Emeraldcovering what he does for campus," said Ong.

Both Houston and Ong say that there has been no official dialogue betweentheir groups and the Emerald about the Dixon coverage. Frank confirms this,but also stresses that the paper has kept channels open. "We invited Dixon,his friends and co-workers to respond," said Frank. Frank says that so faronly BSU co-director and student senator Jamila Singleton has taken theEmerald up on the offer.

According to Houston, Singleton is planning an opinion piece that willconcentrate on public versus private lives, rather than any possible biasin the Emerald's coverage. Singleton was unavailable for comment at presstime.

Currently, the Emerald does not have Dixon's mug shot and has no plans toobtain it or use it in any later coverage. If the question of whether ornot to use the mug shot did arise, it is something the Emerald leadership"would decide as a staff," according to Frank.

There are only two possibilities in this situation. The reality is eitherthat Frank and the Emerald didn't want to use Dixon's picture for fear ofthe wrath of the student unions or that race-related concerns don't matteras much as they did even a year ago, as Houston and Ong seem to feel. Oneconclusion leaves journalistic standards waiting at the bus stop; the otherassumes conditions at the UO are better than they really are. When all issaid and done, only one thing is for sure: no one wins this time.