AT THE PODIUM
The Podium is the Daily's opinion blog. It can be accessed at http://
apps.michigandaily.com/blogs/thepodium/ or by clicking on the Podi-
um link at the Daily's homepage (www.michigandaily.com). Below are
excerpts from this week's featured post, concerning a grievance filed by
a couple of Detroit Lions players against their new head coach, citing
violations of the NFL's collective bargaining agreement.
The Michigan Daily - Monday, May 15, 2006 - 5
Media bias and the worst president ever
JARED GOLDBERG I NOT Now, WHEN :
" ... Like it or not, rules can-
not just be ignored. If (Coach
Rod) Marinelli has a problem
with stipulations in the CBA, he
should work to change them, not
just cheat. And as for the play-
ers, why shouldn't they speak up
when they see violations? Why
are they expected to abide by
rules of secrecy and the "old boys
club" by not reporting violations
of their team? ...
I suppose what irks me most
is that no one sees the violation
of the CBA as a violation. Fans
and the talking heads on the
radio go on about how the players
in the NFL are sissies these days
anyway and how they would have
been pulverized in the old days of
smash-mouth football. Oh really?
Find me a player in the 1940s
or 1950s that could run half as
fast as the average player today
... Athletes today are better
toned than ever before; they
are faster, stronger - and more
injury prone. The NFL instituted
the non-contact drills because
coaches are too stupid to real-
ize how taxing it is to perform at
the level of today's athletes. The
truth is, today's NFL players take
a great deal of risk every play;
every hit today is hard enough to
be a career-ender ...
... What is the point of unions
if we ridicule everything they do?
Many of the aforementioned talk-
ing heads believe unions should
be just for the tough jobs, the
people who are overworked and
underpaid, those who really are
taken advantage of - you know,
your coal miners, railroad work-
ers, all that. Well, it's undeniable
that the NFL is as physically tax-
ing a profession as there is. And
need 1 remind you that, as much
money as the players make, team
owners make 100 times more, and
in the relative sense, the majority
of NFL players are underpaid? ...
... Sure the NFL players are
far better off than child laborers,
but remember that the thinking
involved in both parties' situa-
tions is the same: Rules are meant
to be broken, and if violations
mean an advantage for the com-
pany, then just do it."
- Imran Syed
Editorial Page Editor
recent arti-
cle in Roll-
ing Stone
magazine (The worst
- president in history?)
debated whether
George W. Bush
really is America's
worst president ever.
Alluding to a survey
that polled 415 historians, the article found
- not surprisingly - more than half of the
historians said Bush was among the worst.
Many compared him not to his father or
Ronald Reagan but to Herbert Hoover,
Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan
- presidents whose administrations were
enamored in scandal.
One historian, who viewed Bush more
favorably than the others, attributed
Bush's high disapproval among his col-
leagues not to an alternative evaluation of
his policies, but rather a bias that domi-
nates the entire discipline. It's a conve-
nient excuse used by people on both sides
of the political spectrum to attribute ideas
that differ from their own to bias.
During the height of the Six Day War of
1967, which pitted Israel against Egypt, Jor-
danandSyria,the University became apolit-
ical battleground for students campaigning
for either Israel or the Arab states. Just like
today, students took their arguments from
the Diag to the pages of the Daily. When the
staff printed an article sympathetic toIsrael,
students on the opposite side protested, call-
ing the paper a propaganda piece for Israel.
Likewise, when an article appeared which
criticized the Israeli position, pro-Israel stu-
dents hurled similar accusations.
The childish back-and-forth allegations
led one student to an interesting conclusion.
Joel Hencken, an alum from the class of
1969, wrote in the Daily on June 17, 1967:
"There is a great propensity for indignantly
calling 'objective' what we agree with and
'biased' what we do not agree with."
It is easy to write off opposing ideas as
bias - that way, we don't have to answer
legitimate points that our opponents make.
Criticisms that normally would raise eye-
brows and cause us to think are dismissed
outright. But this behavior - as handy and
self-congratulatory as it is - is danger-
ously counterproductive.
The Daily has often been accused of
bias in its 116-year history. In 1952, a U.N.
delegate from the Soviet Union made a
direct reference to the paper, labeling the
Daily as a mouthpiece for the American
war machine. In 1989, when the editorial
board wrote questionable anti-Israel edito-
rials, large protests were held against the
paper by the Jewish community of south-
eastern Michigan. Several years ago, many
student groups took offense to errors made
by the staff, attributing them to the lack
of minorities on the staff and accused the
paper of racism and racial bias, culminat-
ing in a massive boycott.
And, of course, everyone remembers last
fall's cartoon fiasco.InNovember,a cartoon
was published that grossly oversimplified
affirmative action, depicting a single white
student being told that all of his classmates
will have the benefit of affirmative action in
admission to the University except him.
Despite a full column by then-Editor in
Chief Jason Pesick arguing the rationale
behind the decision to publish the cartoon,
the result once again was charges of bias
leveled by various student groups, and
even a renewed threat of a boycott.
This is not to say that any media outlet
is absolutely accurate in its reporting. The
media's failure to question the Iraq war
before it began stands out as one of the
most egregious errors in recent memory.
Thus, while the Daily is not perfect, nei-
ther is the BBC, which ii often noted for
its impartiality. On May 2, the BBC pub-
lished a report stating that even though
the news agency is committed to being
fair, it has often failed - specifically in
the Arab-Israeli conflict - to provide "a
full and fair account"
Whether or not President Bush can be
accurately calledthe worst American presi-
dent inhistory is difficultto determine. But
he certainly is a poster boy for the "bias"
excuse. Whereas past presidents have tol-
erated media criticism of their administra-
tions, it seems Bush has decided the only
reason he is scrutinized so vehemently is
media bias against him.
But there is a huge difference between
occasionally incomplete coverage and
bias. To live in a bubble where everyone
you communicate with agrees with you
is neither democracy nor a viable compo-
nent of liberal society. If we rely on the
media to report only items we agree with,
we can never be truly informed - we can
only live an illusion.
Goldberg can be reached at
jaredgo@umich.edu.
KATIE GARLINGHOUSE HousE ARREST
TA RIGHT A Y, 1I NOM INATE '
THE FORMER NA CHIEF MICHAEL
HAY N TO SE THE NEW DIRECTOR
- .
p p
NOTABLE QUOTABLE
The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable search-
es and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the per-
sons or things to be seized."
- Fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, takenfrom a tran-
script of the Bill of Rights on the website of The National Archives.
Vending machinery 101
THERESA KENNELLY TiHERE'S A REASON
W hen it
comes to
shaving
inches off of Ameri-
ca's waistline, there's
no better person to
lead the charge than
a former commander
in chief who should
know a little about
unhealthy eating. Yes, it's recent quadru-
ple-bypass surgery patientfBill Clinton who
hopes to point Americans in the direction
of better health. And the former president's
plans for cutting the fat start with attacking
the soda machines in the nation's public
schools.
While the full effects of the program will
not be seen until the 2009-10 school year,
the agreement reached between the nation's
biggest soda producers and schools aims
to make it difficult for 35 million students
to purchase sugar-loaded beverages dur-
ing the school day. Soda machines in high
schools will start stocking only sugar-free,
diet versions of popular drinks, and water,
sports drinks and fruit juices will be the
only beverage choices available for younger
students.The objective - developedby the
WilliamJ. Clinton Foundation - is that by
encouraging children to make smarter drink
choices at school and restricting their rights
to buy "unhealthy" drinks, we can enable
them to apply these health-conscious deci-
sions outside of school and live healthier.
The mission of this programis unmistak-
ably pointed in the right direction. Enforc-
ing healthy rules on school-aged children
will likely have some effect on the drink
decisions they make at school. But the hid-
den flaw in the program is that it will only
succeed in that one action: reducing the
amount of school-purchased sugar drinks
children consume during the school day.
The program does nothing to control what
drinks children bring to school nor does it
encourage greater physical activity or edu-
cate children about the hazards of mass
soda consumption. The program makes
sense because nearly one in five children in
this country is overweight, but to think that
children will rethink their beverage choices
outside of school due to the constraints put
on them at school - without proper educa-
tion on the issue - is foolish.
Clinton and his advisory committee must
have also forgotten the simple logic in the
fact that when you tell kids they can't do
something one way, they will simply find
another way to do it. Informing avid soda
drinkers that the vending machines atschool
will no longer carry their beloved bever-
ages will only result in students buying their
unhealthy drinks somewhere else.
The agreement with soda companies
and schools will have almost no effect on
the $63 billion beverage industry's annual
earnings. School-soda sales are but a min-
ute portion of profits for soda companies,
so cutting sales in school cafeterias will not
interrupt anyone's consumption of soda.
But what's even more telling of the fool-
ishness of Clinton's program is that soda
sales will not be interrupted at school-spon-
sored events such as concerts, plays and
sports games. Essentially,schools are send-
ing the message that it's ok for mom and dad
to drink Coca-Cola during their child's soc-
cer game, but they will keep students from
having this same freedom during the school
day. This defeats the purpose of encourag-
ing students to make smarter drink choices,
because the children who choose to drink
unhealthy drinks at school are the same
children who learn bad nutrition habits
from their parents. And if children see their
parents continuing to drink soda - espe-
cially at school-sponsored events - they
will continue to drink it themselves.
If the true aim is to force Americans
to make healthier decisions, then Clinton
should realize that unhealthy soda consump-
tion and poor nutrition choices are nation-
wide problems, not simply school-cafeteria
problems. Frankly, it would be more rational
to remove soda machines from workplaces
because if adults are forced to make smarter
choices during the day, they may teach their
children to do the same. Then, Americans
could truly begin to attack the obesity epi-
demic in this country.
In a nation where "fat" is a politically
incorrect term for a full-figured person and
almost two-thirds of the adult population
is either overweight or obese, steps should
be taken to encourage better nutrition.
Undoubtedly, it is necessary to tackle the
mass consumption of products that hinder
healthier lifestyles in order to reduce the
percentage of fat Americans, not only to
save lives, but also to save federal money.
But it's education and lifestyle changes that
will do this, not simply eliminating bever-
age choices in the nation's schools.
Kennelly can be reached at
thenelly@umich.edu.