A surprising degree of biased reporting exists within the Daily Sun on the topic of snowmaking. Not only does the newspaper blatantly make its position clear in editorials such as "Artificial snowmaking deserves closer look" (from 01/09/02) and "Tribal Sovereignty over Peaks a stretch" (from 02/22/02), it supports snowmaking in a variety of other, more subtle ways. If the Daily Sun were an unbiased paper, we should expect roughly the same coverage of the various local opinions "for" or "against" snowmaking, or at least we should be presented with articles which favor no "side" and simply present the facts. There is in fact a definite imbalance in the content of the newspaper in favor of articles and editorials which portray snowmaking as a positive future for Flagstaff. For every month except February this is the case with the posted web page comments as well (for all months that have comments). If we factor out the 108 comments posted in reaction to the ethnocentric and degrading editorial "Tribal Sovereignty over Peaks a stretch" (written by Daily Sun editor Randy Wilson), then even February’s comments are more in favor of snowmaking than against it. Whether or not this represents a trend in public opinion can not be known, especially in light of the fact that the daily sun edits out some of the posted comments, as evidenced by the following text...

Most of the domains I found within the data can be broken down into "sides" which are in favor of or which resist the idea of snowmaking on the Peaks. To various degrees, the data displays a running dialogue between these sides (and within them). This conversation is most active in the posted web comments, where in many cases the authors will post several times, and less so in the editorials (which had to be selected, edited, and printed). While people can post comments and write letters to the editor in regard to news stories, the stories are, for the most part, a one sided conversation, a lecture in some sense from the Daily Sun to its readers. The average person flipping through the paper, I will assume, is not doing so with the intent of responding and writing comments for public inspection; they are leisurely reading the news. Given my prior experience with this process, I will also assume that the various titles of the news stories and editorials are more apt to be read than the content below them. Thus, the titles of articles and editorials in the Daily Sun play just as much a role in the semantic network of "snowmaking" as the content of the text below them (the web comments have no titles). Consider the following listing of article and editorial titles from the month of February (which appeared in the data set due to a focus on or mentioning of snowmaking)...

Aside from "Snowmaking is bad idea", there is not a great deal of text which associates negative meanings with snowmaking. In fact, we can see that snowmaking is associated with necessity, it is portrayed as gathering momentum and that Native American opposition to snowmaking is "a stretch". The power of these semantic strategies to give meaning to snowmaking is significant if we consider that the way in which a concept means is dependent not only upon common agreement (cultural definition), but also upon the associations which memory "piles onto" those cultural definitions. While I don’t argue that we are slaves to these associations, it is particularly when we don’t associate a critical gaze to these semantic links that they have the most potential influential power. When the average reader delves into the text under the titles and does not question the validity of the information contained within or the orientation of the article or editorial then their take on the universe, or in this case on snowmaking, is subject to change. Renfro and Morrison argue that...

I would take this a bit further and argue that it is most difficult to screen-away the semantic influences of our environment, particularly when we expose ourselves to its content without the benefit of a critical, holistic, deconstructionist mindset. The ways in which the people behind the text of the Daily Sun (not only the staff but also the people who send editorials and E-postings) assault us with their "take" on snowmaking, both for or against the practice, can be considered a type of semantic warfare.

While I will not go as far as to argue that Flagstaff has become a victim of the Daily Sun, I will argue that there is a good chance the content and orientation of the paper has played a role in the current local meaning of snowmaking, and that this meaning shift is, to some degree, subtle and covert. Even when the other side is portrayed and given a voice in the newspaper, it more often than not exists as a hollow version of itself, a caricature left unexplored...

Another semantic-warfare-related pattern I noticed while reading through the data was that news articles tended to support the arguments of the editorials and comments in favor of snowmaking. Looking at the month of January for example, the news headlines read "Snowbowl Season grinds to a halt" (01/09/02), "Ski resorts weather storm of Sept. 11th and a mild fall" (01/18/02). The editorial titles read "Artificial Snowmaking deserves closer look" (01/09/02) and "Support Snowmaking" (01/27/02). The first news story argues that "There are too many hotels, restaurants, and retail businesses that depend on Snowbowl for a good winter ...snowmaking would provide much-needed stability to the ski-areas operations..." (01/09/02), the editorial from the same day continues the theme of stability, arguing that "...the region needs a winter draw that will get Phoenicians up Interstate 17 in the same numbers as in summer..." (01/09/02). In addition, the editorial addresses the dangers of overdevelopment and rising housing costs associated with other ski towns like Aspen or Vail and concludes, "...None of that, however, appears to be at risk were snow to be made at the Snowbowl..." (01/09/02). We can wonder how the editor came to this conclusion (aside from his status as a proponent of snowmaking), but one thing is clear: the literary reality created by the 01/09 news article continued into the 01/09 editorial. In fact, the need for snowmaking is actively constructed by quite a few news articles which focus on the closing of winter businesses like Mountain Sports [see "Ski shop makes its last run" (02/01/02)], the looming danger of poor winters [see "As the season approaches, the West looks for snow" (10/16/02)], and the interconnectedness of Flagstaff’s tourist industry with the health of Flagstaff’s economy [made clear by the following text within "Panel backs water sale" (02/22/02)...]

As this excerpt demonstrates, it is not uncommon for news articles in the Daily Sun to quote local experts as a means to support the literary realities of the surrounding text. Through the device of quotation, the newspaper seems as if it were simply reporting facts, it seems more like a conversation between the reader and the expert and less like a strategic attempt to persuade.

But before we pass judgment on the Daily Sun editorial staff, we should keep in mind that negative semantic association is a basic and common means to construct an argument in our culture (and that people who oppose snowmaking use the same tactics). Often times it is our first reaction to attack "the other", to associate "them" with negativity instead of composing a rational argument which logically explains our side of the issue. We need only to turn to certain high-profile court cases or recent American (or specifically, Arizonan) political campaigns to see this process in action. One of the more interesting "semantic bouts" of association in the Daily Sun text dealt with variations on the term reclaimed water. Consider the following phrases which were used as synonyms for reclaimed water throughout the articles, editorials, and web postings: recycled water, reclaimed wastewater, grade A+ effluent, recycled wastewater, human waste-water, treated water, clean water, waste water, high quality water, recharged wastewater, reuse of wastewater, treated sewage water, high quality treated wastewater, treated effluent, Flagstaff effluent, treated reclaimed water, effluent, just plain water, water, reclaimed human waste. The particular variant-terms for reclaimed water used in articles, editorials, and web comments seemed to be, to some degree, strategic choices [1]. Consider the following...

In order to fully understand the semantic power of the reclaimed water synonyms, it is necessary to consider the sympathetically contagious nature of the concept (see Rozin and Nemeroff 1990). It is less important to see the synonyms above as clever composition (which to some degree they are), and more important to understand the cultural realities that give them meaning, both for the author and for the reader.

Go To Dominant Domains