4 - Tuesday, October 23, 2007
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
I
7 I l e A
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@umich.edu
IMRAN SYED JEFFREY BLOOMER
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR MANAGING EDITOR
It's a tragic time for California!'
- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on the escalating wildfire crisis in Southern California,
as reported yesterday on CNN.com.
When op-eds cross the line
KARL STAMPFL
EDITOR IN CHIEF
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles
and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
The Daily's public editor, Paul H. Johnson, acts as the readers' representative and takes a critical look at
coverage and contentin every section of the paper. Readers are encouraged to contact the public editor
with questions and comments. He can be reached at publiceditor@umich.edu.
Death to fairness
Feds undermine justice by imposing capital punishment
Hey, Michigan: The Bush administration doesn't care what
you think. At a hearing in Detroit last week, federal pros-
ecutors sought the death penalty for three men charged
with murder in Michigan, a state that became the first in the coun-
try to ban capital punishment in 1847. If they are convicted, they
will join another man the Bush administration put on death row by
aggressively pushing for the death penalty even though it under-
mines the principles of Michigan law. This push to overrule state
law showcases the reckless disregard the current administration
has for the principles of human rights and fairness, within indi-
vidual states and abroad.
What kind of scrutiny do opin-
ion pieces get? This question
came up last week after the
Daily ran a view-
point by LSA fresh-
man Emily Michels
about Al Gore win-
ning the Nobel
Peace Prize (Incon-
venient and unwor-
thy, 10/18/2007).
The piece elic-
ited strong criti- PAUL H.
cism: "I hope not to
see another article JOHNSON
of this poor quality
again," one reader commented. A critic
said it played fast and loose with the
facts and was beneath the dignity of
the Daily to publish.
For the purposes of this piece, I
concede the readers' point. Michel's
piece was one-sided. Gore never really
claimed he invented the Internet: His
opponents claimed he did and their
efforts to repeatedly question Gore's
truthfulness duringthe 2000 presiden-
tial campaign was probably one reason
why he didn't win enough votes in the
electoral college to become president.
Editorial Page Editor Imran Syed
says that he and his staff do fact check
opinion pieces randomly to guard
against plagiarism, but unless a fact
on its face is obviously untrue, they
don't regularly examine every asser-
tion made in an opinion piece. If you
feel a piece might be plagiarized or
have errors you can also contact me
and I'll look into it.
Syed said he knew Michels was
stretching the truth when she said
Gore claimed to have invented the
Internet. "I knew she was taking it
out of context," Syed said. "It probably
wasn't fair, but we do that all the time."
Therefore, while the assertions made
by Michels would have no place in a
news story unchallenged, they do have
a place on the opinion page.
The Daily wants a wide variety of
viewpoints on its opinion page and I
applaud that effort. The Daily should
try to publish a broad spectrum of
viewpoints, both conservative and lib-
eral and from a wide range of readers
from students and faculty to members
of the greater Ann Arbor community.
Just because the Daily wants a vari-
ety of opinions on its pages doesn't
mean that writers can say whatever
they want on the opinion page (well,
with the possible exception of me,
since the editors of the Daily are not
allowed to edit my columnfor content),
but it does mean that the standards of
fairness are more relaxed on opinion
pages than on the news pages.
Why do opinion pages get more
leeway than news pages? Well, you
can't necessarily fact check a person's
opinion or a person's interpretation
of a fact. And while I have no doubt
that Michels's piece intended to knock
Gore's esteem in the eyes of her Michi-
gan peers, that's OK with me.
In fact, the Daily's motive in encour-
aging this kind of robust debate is sim-
ple - if you see an opinion you disagree
with, respond in kind. In Monday's and
today's paper, the Daily ran letters crit-
icizing Michels's piece. That's exactly
the kind of response Syed wanted. So
if you see something in the paper that
upsets you, write about it. Don't let it
go unquestioned. Contact me or write a
letter to the editor.
news story a couple of weeks
ago described the tryouts of
Michigan students for Play-
boy Magazine's "Girls of the Big Ten"
issue (In A2, dreams of gloss and glory,
10/09/2007).
Staff writer Kimberly Chou respect-
ed the privacy of the women in the arti-
cle by referring to them only by their
first and middle names. And there was
good reason for that. One subject of
the article, Amber, found herself the
subject of too much attention, as some
people were able to figure out her full
name by the use of her first and middle
names in the article.
The Daily uses anonymous sources
sparingly, as it should. As well, Amber
said she didn't realize the reporter was
still interviewing her when she was
quoted as saying"I skipped three class-
es this morning for this." Amber said
she was just being witty and instead
felt like the quote came across as her
not taking class seriously.
I think this was just a misunder-
standing between source and report-
er. When interviewing people on
campus, all reporters should be aware
Keeping things in
context and being
fair to sources.
that not everyone knows how the
news business works and therefore
should ensure as much as practicable
that their subjects will know how
their names will be used, especially in
potentially sensitive stories.
In most cases it will be clear when
greater sensitivity is warranted -
when interviewing crime victims or
family members who lost a loved one
or when the publication of a source's
name will likely expose that person to
probable public ridicule. On the other
hand, if the source is a public official,
the burden should be on the public
official to realize that his or her words
can make their way into the news-
paper, but that doesn't mean that a
public official's words can be twisted
beyond recognition.
I'd like to know what you think. Let
me know.
Paul H. Johnson isthe Daily's
public editor. He can be reached
at publiceditor@umich.edu.
From 1988, when the federal death penal-
ty was revived, to when Bush took office in
2000, no death sentence was handed down
in a non-death penalty state. President
Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno, did
seek the death penalty under these circum-
stances in a handful of cases, but the Bush
administration's ceaseless pressure toforce
through death sentences in states that ban
them is certainly unique. According to The
Detroit News, there have been a total of
eight death penalty verdicts in non-death
penalty states since 2000, and there will
potentially be three more cases added to
that tally should the men from last week's
hearing in Detroit be convicted.
Using federal law is simply a back-door
way of imposing the death penalty on states
whose citizens are enlightened enough to
have outlawed such barbarity. Repeals of
the ban in Michigan - which has stood for
160 years - have repeatedly failed, includ-
ing those proposed as recently as 1999 and
2004. Clearly, Michigan residents have a
problem with capital punishment. It is com-
pletely unacceptable for Bush to impose his
own twisted, backward ideology on states
that rejected the death penalty long before
he took office - or was even born.
The federal government ignores the fact
that the supposedly painless practice of
lethal injection can actually go very wrong.
Recently, many experts have argued that
lethal injection is extremely painful to
the person being executed. In fact, their
arguments are strong enough that the U.S.
Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case
ARIELA STEIF
this term and will soon decide whether or
not death by lethal injection constitutes
cruel and unusual punishment.
Whether or not the death penalty is cruel
and unusual,itis certainlyexpensive forboth
the state and the defendant. A 2003 audit in
Kansas found that the investigation costs for
capital punishment cases were about three
times greater than for non-death cases. Trial
costs were about 16 times greater and appeal
costs 21 times greater. It is even more expen-
sive to prosecute capital punishment cases
in Michigan and other non-death penalty
states because death penalty lawyers must
be brought in from other states.
Most significant, the states that banned
capital punishment recognized that killing
criminals eliminates any chance of recti-
fying mistakes in the legal system, which
has proven all too flawed. With advances
in technology, evidence is frequently found
that exonerates death row inmates of their
crimes. In 2000, Illinois Governor George
Ryan suspended all executions in the
state because more of Illinois's death row
inmates had been exonerated than execut-
ed. Of the state's 25 prisoners on death row
since 1977, 13 were later proven innocent of
their crimes. In one instance, the evidence
that led to proof of the inmate's innocence
was discovered just two days before the
execution was to be carried out.
Cases like these are clear evidence that,
more than simply not serving justice, capi-
tal punishment actively threatens it. It has
no place in our country and certainly no
place in Michigan.
An illuminating experience
.........
The evening was gaining that
chill familiarto Octobernights
in Michigan, and I decided
that maybe presi-
dential candidate
Ron Paul's speech
on the Diag wasn't
worth waiting for
without a sweat-
shirt. My house-
mate and I left the
growing crowd
and headed home. EMMARIE
It was only about HUETTEMAN
7:15 p.m. and not
quite dark, so I was
much more lax in my vigilance of our
surroundings than I would typically
have been while walking alone. My
friend and I talked carelessly about
politicians and YouTube.
As we made our way down East Jef-
ferson Street, I noticed that my friend
had stopped talking and was looking
over her shoulder. Glancing around to
see what had caught her attention, I
saw a man who I could only describe
as bigger, stronger and tattooed walk-
ing up behind us - fast. I thought
that he was just trying to pass us, so
I turned around again and noticed
uneasily that the street was empty.
At that moment, a group of four boys
rounded the corner. As they walked
toward us, I suddenly realized that
the man was gone.
My housemate told me later that the
man had been walking in the opposite
direction but had turned around after
we passed him, pursuing us in such
a way that made it clear that I was
wrong; he wasn't trying to pass us. In
those few seconds, she had calculated
all the ways that she, at 5-foot-2, could
have taken him down. Without pepper
spray or self-defense knowledge at our
disposal, though, there weren't many
options.
Ironically, this D.C.-born and Atlan-
ta-bred girl discovered her own vul-
nerability on the streets of Ann Arbor.
Since this incident two weeks ago,
I have become increasingly aware of a
common problem in areas dominated
by student housing: poor lighting. It's
not a new problem by any means, but
the fact that it's been left largely unad-
dressed makes it worth bringing up
again. A little research into the safety
of the area reminded me that the rob-
bery at gunpoint of three University
students last February happened on
the same street - in fact, the same
block - down which my friend and I
were followed. That stretch of East
Jefferson has only two streetlights,
which aren't always lit.
In the winter of this year, a group
of concerned students founded Make
Ann Arbor Bright, an organization
that petitioned the Ann Arbor City
Council for better lighting in student
neighborhoods after interviewing
mugging victims. The victims agreed
that improved lighting could have
prevented the crimes. However, Make
Ann Arbor Bright faced the skepticism
of council members who countered
that they weren't sure more lighting
would deter crime and noted that it
would raise energy costs and increase
light pollution. They put the street-
light additions on hold due to financial
restraints.
Enter the energy-efficient, non-
polluting, cost-effective alternative.
The Associated Press reported Friday
that Ann Arbor will be one of the first
cities in the country to use LED tech-
nology in about 1,400 of its street-
lights. The LEDs use less than half
the energy of our current lights, help-
ing the city live up to its eco-friendly
reputation. They could also save the
city $100,000 a year.
With Ann Arbor at the forefront
of this revolutionary idea, the city
is setting a precedent for the rest of
the country. The use of LED technol-
ogy can only improve cities, and Ann
Arbor's investment in it proves that
this city cares about its community,
within city limits and beyond. Since
LED lighting addresses the issues
of energy costs, light pollution and
scarce funding, the city council is
down to its last flimsy excuse not to
respond to students' call for better
lighting: It isn't sure that it will fix
the crime problem.
No excuses left
for inadequate
street lighting.
True, my close call proves that
street lighting isn't enough to solve
crime in Ann Arbor. Vigilance, com-
mon sense and pepper spray are argu-
ably some of the most effective crime
prevention tools with which students
can arm themselves. However, as a20-
year-oldwomanwho walkshome after
dark, I really don't care whether statis-
tics have proven that streetlights deter
crime: I know they promote safety.
I shouldn't have to hope that people
left their porch lights on so that I can
avoid tripping over recycle bins. Nei-
ther should I have to stick to the roads
so that I have a head start if someone
emerges from the darkened bushes.
And if someone's going to attack me, I
want enough light to be able to aim my
pepper spray.
Emmarie Huetteman is an
associate editorial page editor. She
can be at huetteme@umich.edu.
J
~'°'
"#:" g
,ca
l
...
Kj
SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@UMICH.EDU
'U'must live up to
partnership with WRC
TO THE DAILY:-
I'm glad that the Daily wrote an edito-
rial about the University's labor policies,
but I'd like to point out that the Univer-
sity is already affiliated with the Worker's
Rights Consortium. Students Organizing
for Labor and Economic Equalitydid asit-
in in 2000 that won that affiliation. The
University has a committee that is sup-
posed to meet for an hour and a half every
month (but it hasn't met yet this year) to
discuss the reports that the WRC submits
and review the status of some licensees
(including Adidas).
But even though it is affiliated with the
WRC, the University, citing its precious
autonomy, does not listen to any of its sug-
gestions for fixing our labor policies, like
signing onto the Designated Suppliers'
Program or cutting contracts with licens-
ees that utilize factories where the WRC
documents cases of abuse.
The editorial gets the gist of the argu-
ment: The University should get seri-
ous about sweatshops, instead of talking
about potentially having a committee
meeting to talk about getting serious
about sweatshops.
Blase Kearney
LSA junior
The letter writer is a member of SOLE.
Viewpoint distorts
Gore's statements
TO THE DAILY:
Emily Michels's viewpoint from
last week (Inconvenient and unworthy,
10/18/2007) could have used some fact-
checking. First, her viewpoint insinu-
ates that Gore is resume padding. That - his ties to O
is mostly what hack college students could have bee
do, not politically active former vice point if she ha
presidents. Secondly, Michels makes it Ann Coulter's b
sound like Gore took the spotlight for his
own sinister purpose with regard to his Matt Steele
Nobel Peace Prize, despite the fact that RC sophomore
Gore did not nominate himself.
Michels also copies the right wing
attack strategy by using a previous state- Big Ten1
ment by Gore to infer a long history oflies
and hypocrisy. At this point she spews lesser of
out a statement that is entirely invalid:
that Al Gore claimed to have invented TO THE DAILY
the Internet. This lie has been told many In response t
times, but Gore never claimed to have ter about the B
created the Internet. Republican opera- letic Director B
tives misconstrued his words. and from true michigan f
there the lie spread into the impression- versity, 10/22/2
able minds of people who wanted a dim- would blame t
witted president rather than one who is But this is actu
a little more on top of things. evils are fightir
I do want to thank Michels for alerting Michigan fans:
me to the dark side of Gore's political life Personally, I
ccidental Petroleum. That
en made into a full view-
dn't just been skimming
log for talking points.
Network is
two evils
Y:
to Christopher Willis's let-
ig Ten Network and Ath-
ill Martin (The interests of
ans are overlooked by Uni-
007), I can see why Willis
the Athletic Department.
ally a situation where two
ng over the right to screw
over.
've sided with the Big Ten
Network since I have a burning hatred
toward Comcast. Since it's basically asce-
nario involving one of two corporate-type
entities gorging on profits, I feel more
comfortable giving money to the Big Ten
since some of it will trickle down to the
University's athletic department. Also, I
think it's actually kind of exciting that a
lot of the smaller sports will get some of
their games broadcasted.
Sure most other people probably won't
care to watch and will dismiss BTN as
unnecessary, but I'd rather see more
Michigan sports on the air than watch
anything offered on Comcast's basic
package. I'd like to see the Daily do a news
story specifically looking into the asser-
tions made by Martin. Was BTN's offer to
Comcast fair? Does Comcast's ownership
of rival regional sports networks play a
role in the negotiations?
Andrew Woo
Law student
6