Wednesday, June 29, 2011 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com 5 Muddy media "I frankly, am stunned." - Rod Blagojevich, in response to his 17 guilty verdicts. Of all the acclaimed and influ- ential works that political theorist Hannah Arendt wrote in her life, "Lying in Poli- tics" stands out to me as the most timeless and relevant pieces about American politics. Arendt's work discussed the controversial MAX Pentagon Papers LEVENSTEIN - top secret documents that were leaked to the public by Daniel Ellsberg in 1971. These papers con- tained information about the Viet- namWar and other conflicts around the region that proved that both President Johnson and President Nixon knowingly lied and misled the American people and Congress about their military efforts. Lying in politics has proven to be not just for the presidents of the 1960's; Americans today have faced it numerous times, especially on issues surrounding overseas mili- tary operations. We are skeptical of our government, as we should be, and rely on both our intuition and media sources to guide our senti- ments about our elected politicians. Butwhatifourtrustedmediasourc- es are no longer reliable? What if the things we read and hear from news sources do not reflect the truth in politics, but exactly the opposite? We would no longer be able to fully judge our politicians or form a sen- sible'opinion ofourgovernment and national issues, thus virtually inca- pacitating the American voter. In a recent segment of "The Daily Show," Jon Stewart makes a com- plete mockery of Fox News by list- ing various statements made by its hosts and pundits that were proven to be false by the non-partisan political fact checkinggroup, politi- fact.com. Among these were claims like Obama has overseen the gen- eration of more U.S. debt than all other presidents combined, nation- al health care will include death panels and Governor Rick Scott's approval ratings are up. To be sure, this is not just a Fox issue, as false or exaggerated statements are quite common on many "news" stations on television. Start worrying. I am fully aware that cable news outlets are partisan, as it is com- monly understood that Fox News leans right and its counterpart, MSNBC, leans left. This leads each to present events and issues in a dif- ferent light, supporting the political ideology that is most convenient. This fact, however undesirable, is something we have come to accept and put up with. What we cannot accept are out- right lies. We cannot allow sources that call themselves "news" to have zero respect for the ethics of real journalism and blatantly lie to the American public. These examples that Stewart pointed out could never be considered nonpartisan. There is no room for ideological interpretation in these statements as they are either true or false. The debt under President Obama can be researched and compared against all debt in the past. Death panels are a made up idea created to scare Americans away from any notion of supporting a Democratic agenda. Misrepresenting poll numbers to say that Republican Governor Rick Scott's ratings are up, when in fact they were not. Lying isn't reserved for politicians. How can we listen to media if we never know what is fact or fiction? There is no possible way to know how I should feel on an issue, or which candidate I should vote for, if the only sources I have available lie to me Is it not enough that we are fearful of our government lying to us, much less the media? Unfortunately, the print news- papers that have respected the eth- ics of journalism and truthfulness are dying in America, leaving the news industry to those on televi- sion and online. Americans no lon- ger demand truth in their news, but rather entertaining stories that they can gossip about with others. Sensationalism is not news, nor is it truth. We need to shift our view of media and demand that it change from entertainment to informative discussion. We have plenty of other sources of entertainment, but news should not be one of them. Arendt wrote about the dangers of lying in politics and stated that a free press would help prevent it from being commonplace. How can we ensure that our media is held to the same standard? Trendy philanthropy It seems as though philanthro- py and consumerism are becom- ing ever more indistinguishable. Now, you can accumulate donations for a cause while brows- - ing the web ,i using Good- Search.com or you can buy a ANNA pair of shoes CLEMENTS from TOMS and know that because of your purchase, a pair of shoes will be donated to a needy child in a disadvantaged country. You can order textbooks from Better World Books, which raises money for literacy and education as well as donating to overseas literacy programs. You can even support the Ann Arbor Public Schools by shopping at the PTO thrift shop. Especially in the current eco- nomic climate, we see it as our duty as citizens to buy more and support the economy. The solu- tion seems clear: If people buy more, then there will be more jobs available, more tax money going to the government and more satisfaction all around. This may not be as beneficial as it seems, however. Even if the corporations from which you buy your shoes and books are donat- ing things to people in need, it's important not to let that turn into a red herring, taking attention away from the various problems with over-consumption. While it is undoubtedly good for companies to be aware of their responsibility to the greater com- munity (on whatever scale they may conceive of), philanthropy and consumerism must remain discernable from each other - confusing the two is detrimental to both. The goal of business is normally to make a profit, where- as the goal of philanthropy is to promote the welfare of others. The two are not congruent. Nev- ertheless, businesses have found ways to practice philanthropy in ways that, through improving their image, actually promote profit. The problem with this spurs from placing primary attention on the consumerist aspects of philanthropic projects, rather than on their goals and achieve- ments. Don't get me wrong, I love the bake sales in Angell Hall. But when you're being charitable it's important to make sure that the ways in which you go about it don't make people ignorant of the sources they're supporting. For example, the TOMS shoes website includes extensive infor- mation about where, how, and why they give shoes to needy children around the world. What is not mentioned on the site is where, how and by whom the shoes are made. They sell a line of vegan shoes, but the materials going into their other shoes may come from cows that were raised in factory farms and spent their lives being overfed in confined spaces, thus adding methane to the atmosphere and contribut- ing to global climate change. Furthermore, carting loads of shoes overseas causes additional emissions from planes, and dis- tributing free shoes may put local industries in developing economies out of business. Of course, this is not an overall con- demnation of TOMS; it's simply a suggestion to look beyond the donations a business makes. My point is not to criticize TOMS shoes or any other indus- try that strives to give back as well as gain. But it is clear that we should not let philanthropy put a blinder over our eyes, so that we cease to examine these business- es as critically as we would any other. Furthermore, for student organizations to promote simi- lar business behavior is also fine, as long as the students that par- ticipate in them recognize that what they are doing is providing free advertising, not community service or organizing or fund- raising. I say this as a member of SOLE (Students Organizing for Labor and Economic Equality), which, for about a year, has been promoting Alta Gracia, the union- made University apparel supplier. Clearly, if people are looking for a pair of shoes or a University hoodie, then they are not doing anything wrong by buying from the union-made or philanthropic sources rather than the alterna- tives. It's just not OK for consum- erism to become the new charity, and for people to assume that by buying something they are having a net positive impact on the world. It's vital to look past corporate charity. Actually figuring out the net impact of shopping in philan- thropic stores is tricky, but it is important to look at more than just charity when judging an industry's imact. If the sources of the goods are unsustainable - either socially, through labor standards or environmentally - then aid to charity is most likely not worth the damage that those donations may cause. If we want to actually put our money where our ideologies are, then it's important to see beyond corpo- rate charity. Anna Clements can be reached at asiobhan@umich.edu. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor. Letters should be fewer than 300 words and must include the writer's full name and University affiliation. Send letters to tothedaily@umich.edu. Max Levenstein can be reached at medl@umich.edu.