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