0 4A - Thursday, March 26, 2009 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com E-MAIL HARUN AT BULJINAH@UMICH.EDU I e l igan ily HARUN BULJINA Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@umich.edu GARY GRACA ROBERT SOAVE COURTNEY RATKOWIAK EDITOR IN CHIEF EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR MANAGING EDITOR 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. If print goes extinct Journalistic integrity will decline as newspapers go online Thanks to a failing economy and a slumping market for print journalism, the city of Ann Arbor will soon lose one of its oldest public patrons. The Ann Arbor News, which has served the city as its primary daily newspaper since 1835, plans to shut its doors in July. While the paper will still publish stories online, its print version will only exist on Thursday and Sundays in a format that is still unclear. This comes with serious ramifica- tions for the state of news coverage in Ann Arbor. Print newspapers like The Ann Arbor News serve a vital purpose that can't always be fulfilled on online, and readers both in Ann Arbor and across the country must realize that the decline of print journalism is bad for responsible reporting. f s r 6 6 'Fair trade'tragedy With the growth of the Internet, the number of advertisers still looking to invest in print resources is declining. The Internet is perceived as more convenient to readers with its constant updates and easy access. Due to this trend, The Ann Arbor News, like many other newspapers in the industry, will publish primarily online. While it's fortunate that the newspaper isn't facing complete extinction, it's likely that much of the staff will be left unem- ployed and that on the whole, the Ann Arbor community will be less exposed to local news coverage. When at its best, the Ann Arbor News served a strong public purpose by inves- tigating and reporting on local news that affected its residents. While the quality declined as the newspaper struggled to stay afloat during the past few years, it's reasonable to think that few media orga- nizations will be able to completely fill the News's shoes anytime soon. That's a shame for this city. This reality is even more disheartening because of the state of newspapers across the country. The shrinking of the num- ber of available newspapers leaves those that do survive with a responsibility to fill the coverage gaps. This forces them to become less specialized and obligates them to report on a greater number of issues, diluting content. This, in combination with decreasing competition in the daily news- paper market, threatens the overall quality and value of the existing papers. Part of the benefit of having many newspapers is that they must compete to offer their readers the most reliable, detailed and vigilant cov- erage. Diminished competition results in the same thing that happens in other mar- kets- alower-quality product. Arguably, those who still care about the city will seek out news from the Internet, and it's good that newspapers can still sur- vive in this medium. But the self-filtering quality of online news coverage is problem- atic. When readers search for news in mas- sive databases, it's likely they will choose to read only the news that already confirms their own beliefs. This results in a populace that is less informed and, ultimately, more bitterly polarized. As newspapers like The Ann Arbor News rapidly approach their final days, readers must be aware that print journalism serves a necessary purpose in society that can't always be replaced by simply moving online. Vigilant, objective and responsible coverage necessitates competition among print news- papers. As the saying goes, don't believe everything you read on the Internet. ot too long ago, I was walk- ing across the Diag and saw a group of students speak- ing out (very loud- ly) against child labor. I respect the desire to prevent minors from hav- ing to work, but to:, call for an outright end to child labor is absurd. I agree that in a few specific IBRAHIM cases, there are KAKWAN problems with the practice. In central Congo, for example, children work in diamond mines for under a dollar a day. They are surrounded by guns and unstable mud walls, and many are killed. But on the whole, child labor provides an avenue for mil- lions around the world to survive. It may not be progressive or ideal, but it keeps them alive and can be much better than the alternatives. Plus, it makes things cheaper for Americans. Sometimes, it's better to make soc- cer balls than to be on the streets or forced into prostitution. In the mid '90s, a UNICEF study found that an international boycott of Nepali rugs that aimed to stem child labor result- ed in the loss of several thousand fac- tory jobs held by children. Many of these children, mostly girls, wound up as prostitutes. In the late 1980's, the Bangladeshi textile industry (which today employs thousands of children) was still under development, and many chil- dren were on the streets as beggars, prostitutes or hard laborers. With the expansion of the textile industry and the emergence of sweatshops, many of these children were taken off the streets. If there is any doubt that child labor was responsible for this positive change, then an Oxfam study illustrates the consequences of facto- ry closures: in one case, up to 30,000 children lost their jobs, many became prostitutes and some even starved. The factories were closed in response to international discontent with their use of child labor. What needs to be understood is that the alternative to work is not school or a "normal" childhood. If activists force the closure of factories employing children, then the chil- dren will suffer. If there is no work, there is no food. The children know this, so they will take whatever work manifests itself. There are also less savory forms of child labor, but even those can pro- vide salvation in desperate situations. It's possible that parents may place their children into indentured ser- vitude. Often, this results in exploi- tation of the children, but in many places it functions as a last resort. A typical arrangement will involve a (low) lump sum payment to the fam- ily in return for a 2-3 year period of work from the child. If a family is faced by hardship - a debt, backed rent or parents who are temporarily incapacitated - such an agreement can keep the entire family off the streets, including the child. This is part of the reason why indi- viduals who choose to boycott firms or products that involve the use of child labor may unintentionally be harming the children. A multination- al company is probably among the best possible employers for a child. The wages tend to be more regular and are generally higher than the local alternatives. Plus, there is no danger of indentured servitude. Even the adults.benefit: when a big factory opens, the local demand for labor increases, and so can wages. In most cases, sweatshop wages even exceed the local average. And don't be fooled by companies that promote "fair trade." At the end of the day, if a company has a slogan thatemphasizes its"no-sweat"stance, then it's simply attempting a different approach to product differentiation. Buying from such a company doesn't actually help the individuals who are in sweatshops - it just makes the buyers feel better about themselves, allows them to "make a statement" and drains their pockets. It also diverts business from employers who keep children off the streets. How child labor actually saves kids' lives. 6 On a larger scale, the movement against anti-child labor can become entangled with protectionism. It is all too easy for an industry to seek pro- tection by lobbying to limit imports under the veil of promoting chil- dren's rights. Better yet, it is not only politically correct, but can improve a company's image in the eyes ofawell- intentioned public. Of course, there is no real benefit to those abroad - on the contrary, any import restrictions will only result in the children losing their jobs and livelihoods. If you drink Coca-Cola, know that the sugar may have come from a plantation in El Salvador, employ- ing a contingent of child laborers. But be happy: you have done your part to prevent those kids from joining vio- lent gangs like MS-13 or 18th Street. My family is from that country, and let me tell you, it does make a differ- ence. I remember watching an old lady have her head bashed open in a grocery store, presumably by a gang member. When children as young as seven are being recruited by these same people to traffic drugs or engage in gang warfare, labor provides a safe alternative. It's a win-win: the chil- dren are safe and paid, the multina- tionals make money and it can even prevent crime. - Ibrahim Kakwan can be reached at ijameel@umich.edu. EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Nina Amilineni, Emad Ansari, Emily Barton, Elise Baun, Harun Buljina, Ben Caleca, Satyajeet Deshmukh, Brian Flaherty, Emmarie Huetteman, Emma Jeszke, Sutha K Kanagasingam, Shannon Kellman, Jeremy Levy, Erika Mayer, Edward McPhee, Matthew Shutler, Neil Tambe, Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Van Gilder ELISE BAUN I Educating from the bottom Avoiding anti-Semitism President Barack Obama has certainly taken his Bob-the-Builder philosophy to heart. "Can we fix it? Yes we can!" Unfortunately, while he seems to be trying to attack each problem indi- vidually, I'm not convinced that his education policy will make the cut. Obama's most recent speech discussing education policy took place on Mar. 10. His speech was great, as we can usu- ally expect, and he engaged his audience. In it, he outlined five different "pillars" that he would like to see implemented in his education policy. As a tutor for America Reads, I am all too aware of the increasing education gap in Ameri- ca's schools. Not only are American schools fall- ing behind the rest of the world, but inner-city and other under-privileged schools are falling behind the rest of America. One of the bestways to improve this inconsistency is to help students improve the foundation of their education. You can't teach children algebra without first teach- ing them addition. Thankfully, Obama's first pillar focuses on investing tax money in lower elementary and preschool programs. This is an excellent area on which to concentrate, since our elementary schools and younger children are often neglect- ed. This is partially because of the increasing financial crisis for higher education. As Obama stated, we save $10 for every dollar invested in childhood education programs. This extra money could, in the long run, be put toward higher education. But saving money and helping younger chil- dren is only one-fifth of the plan Obama wants to implement. The other four-fifths attend to other education problems like the financial cri- sis for higher education. Obama wants to make sure that every kid has the chance to attend college, partially by providing better financial aid. The problem with this plan is that it leaves children at a distinct disadvantage. There is no point in sending everyone to college if they never learned the fundamental skills in elemen- tary school. The rest of the plan, as outlined by Obama, also sounded a little reminiscent of former Pres- ident George W. Bush's policies. Obama decided to set up a system of accountability and fix No Child Left Behind, which is arguably one of the worst plans ever implemented by the govern- ment. What Obama doesn't seem to realize is that we already have a system of accountability that places unbending and misrepresentative academic requirements on schools, teachers and, most importantly, elementary school stu- dents. I would be more bolstered by Obama's plan if he could outline how he plans to change the assessments used to determine who is doing well and who is doing poorly. Once Obama has changed these regulations, he needs to also recognize that when schools - usually inner-city and under-privileged - cannot make the grade, the worst thing to do is simply cut funding. The current plan has arbi- trary rules that cause schools that most need funding to lose it. This plan aims to change the current system by putting the states in charge of education. But, again, one major problem with the current sys- tem is that states all have different standards. Of course, Obama mentioned state accountability with the same breath he also used to talk about inconsistent regulations that need to be changed at a federal level. It is not currently clear at what level the regulations will be implemented, but it should be a federal system of accountability. Unfortunately, Obama will only give his new Early Learning Challenge Grant to states that have demonstrated a concrete plan to fix the quality of their programs. But what does this mean for Michigan - a state so failing in its economy that it can't fix its budget, let alone establish programs for early learning? If Obama can talk about inconsistent state regulations, he should also be able to set up a federal plan to help the states and schools who are falling into the cracks. And most importantly, a working system of accountability can only be realized once all schools have the tools and ability to meet the standards. Teachers can't keep teaching to tests and hoping that students will be able to perform the same in all areas of the country. This system is cyclical and perpetuates what the Obama calls a "race to the bottom." Once we have improved the state of lower education, we can finally focus on allowing everyone to have an opportunity to get higher education. As a college student, I would love to see the cost of tuition go down. But Obama is not necessarily talking about lowering that cost - he just wants to make sure everyone has a chance to pay the bill. That will only happen when all students are taught effectively at the elementary level. You wouldn't build a house by starting with the roof. Elise Baun is an LSA senior. n a campus with roughly 6,000 Jewish students, identifying as a Jew isn't something I usually worry about. Anti- Semitism is largely a topic for lecture halls rather than a fact of everyday life. But in the past few months, particular- ly during the recent violence in the Gaza Strip, I have expe- rienced a torrent of MATTHEW bitter arguments GREEN about my support of Israel. - To be sure, dis- agreeing with the Jewish state is not the same as hating Jews. There is a nuanced distinction between anti-Zi- onism and anti-Semitism, and indeed, many Jews take issue with Zionism. But the lines are blurry. Particularly in attempts to embolden otherwise legitimate arguments against Israel, students occasionally support their opinions with unintentional anti-Jew- ish sentiment. "The U.S. only supports Israel," I have been told, "because American Jews control Washington." Ignorant remarks likethis one are especially dis- appointing as they serve to dilute very real concerns about Israeli politics. Those concerns are moreover under- mined because condemning Israel as a nation of bigoted jingoists has become the latest posh opinion of leftist pseu- do-intellectuals. Even when the Israel debate steers clear from cultural epithets and chic cluelessness, the dialogue generally follows the same script. Opponents insist that Israeli statehood goes against the natural order of the region, arguing that Israel denies basic rights to Palestinians while accepting too much money from the U.S., among other concerns. Israel supporters then assert that it's a thriving democracy in the Middle East, a loyal ally of the United States and that it has the right to defend itself from countless enemies in the region. The debate is an exhaust- ed war of words and leaves little room for consensus. Clearly, Israel needs to be more responsive to the humanitarian needs of Palestinians rendered powerless by poverty. Israel's actions in Gaza this winter had understandable intentions but also exemplified an Israeli callous- ness that shocked many in the West. As the rightist administration of Benja- min Netanyahu likely comes to power in Israel, it must be open-minded to all possibilities on the path toward peace. It has to prove the world wrong. If you don't like Israeli politics, keep in mind that there's a way to criticize it without calling for its destruction or resorting to anti-Semitic slurs. See the above paragraph for an example. Emotions and an overall disregard for pragmatism have gotten the best of people in the throes of this philosophi- cal debate, and it's time to stop raising the same talking points. I'm not worried that Israel-bashing will morph into a new wave of anti- Semitism. But I'm sad to see discussion focused solely around conflict when there is so much else to talk about and so much to love about Israel. Blinded by one element of Israeli politics, the world neglects to see the seemingly impossible accomplishments achieved by the Jewish state in only 61 years of existence. From a barren desert, the first Israelis built a modern nation that enjoys a Western standard of living. While the American economy may be lucky to grow at all this year, the Israeli economy continues to grow at a rate of roughly 4 percent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Much of this growth is a result of enor- mous Israeli investment in technology that has given the world the cell phone, AOL Instant Messenger and the ingest- ible video camera used in colonosco- pies.Thestudyofmedicine,specifically, has been significantly advanced by the ingenuity of Israeli hospitals and tech- nology. But the Israeli story does not end there. Criticism of Israeli politics shouldn't turn to hatred. 6 Before becoming the second nation in modern history to elect a female head of government, Israel addressed equal rights for women in the early 1950s, a decade before the United States had the same dialogue. In addi- tion, Israel is the only nation on the planet that entered the new millen- nium with a net gain of trees, thanks to efforts bythe Jewish National Fund. In fact, the overall dedication Israel has shown toward environmentalism - from water conservation to reducing air pollution - is unparalleled, particu- larly amongyoungnations. Yet more importantly, Israel is the cultural and spiritual homeland of a people spat upon by the world since its genesis. All biblical or religious rea- soning aside, the Jews deserve a home. Jews have clung to books and bagels in the world's cities and villages for most of their existence. A definite homeland has beenthe missingpuzzle pieceinthe collective Jewish psyche for too long. 6 Nevertheless, that doesn't give Israelis the right to deny anything to Palestin- ians. Rather, Jewish past should give Israelis an understanding of what it means to be evicted from history. So disagree with the Israeli gov- ernment, by all means. Just don't get carried away with blind, categorical assertions - because when you do, your opinions are only extra shrapnel in the conflict. - Matthew Green can be reached at greenmat@umich.edu.