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.