T
wo
of
the
most
destructive
hurricanes
in
our
country’s
history just finished ravishing
the coastline of our
southern seaboard, and
it made for great TV.
Both hurricanes had
all the elements of the
perfect disaster story:
terrifying
predictions
including reporters in
raincoats struggling to
stand in the wind, the
ever-present
satellite
image of a multicolored
storm spiraling toward
the
homeland.
A
terrifying
aftermath full of flooding with
families fleeing their homes and,
finally, the comforting videos
that somehow restore our faith
in humanity as we watch first
responders and average citizens
rescuing people from a disaster
we’ve been watching nonstop,
spurring ourselves into some
form of action, most likely
through donations and charity.
That is, until our attention
spans run out.
Those distinct features that
capitalize on our desire to
watch such tragedies and be
moved into action to help are
the same ones that divert our
attention elsewhere.
North
Korea,
Trump’s
Twitter,
Myanmar
genocide,
Russian
investigation,
Neo-
Nazis, DACA are all ready to
recapture our attention. Because
no matter how horrifying the
disasters in Texas and Florida
were, no matter how much
we are moved to charity and
compassion — we and the media
will move on and forget.
And when we move on, when
our attention subsides, when
the dramatic black-and-white
images of mothers trudging
through water carrying their
children are no longer the center
of our attention — that’s when
we forget, and the people who
actually needed our help the
most never receive it.
The individuals who were
fortunate to have private flood
insurance will rebuild, move
back in and try to resume a life
after total disaster, but only
42 percent of homes in coastal
Florida are covered under
such insurance, and in Texas
even fewer homes are insured.
In
Harris
County,
which
includes Houston
—
one
of
the
hardest cities hit
by the hurricane
— only 15 percent
of homes.
So as the TV
networks pack up
their news cameras
and
we
resume
our
Facebook
discussions on the
benefit of hearing
out Nazis, the hurricane victims
who are uninsured are left to
our federal government and the
assistance they receive already
looks dire. The little assistance
they will receive are through the
Federal Emergency Management
Agency’s
National
Flood
Insurance Program, a program
that has been inundated since
Hurricane Katrina in 2005 — and
currently owes the U.S. Treasury
some $23 billion — will now have
to extend its credit to continue
financing the rebuilding after
Harvey and Irma.
And
this
is
where
the
cynicism returns. Because such
an endeavor by FEMA and the
Flood Insurance program will
be unable to keep up with the
sheer magnitude of damage done
to Florida and Texas — disasters
requiring hundreds of billions of
dollars to repair the damages.
This is where the low-income
neighborhoods disappear, where
families flee their homes to never
return and, most importantly,
where new prime real estate
opens up.
Cue
“disaster
capitalism,”
what
writer
Naomi
Klein’s
describes as corporations and
governments utilizing disasters
to
“transform”
regions
and
gain
financially.
Hurricane
Katrina was a prime example
of this, and as described in
Klein’s
book
“The
Shock
Doctrine,” the shock induced
by the hurricane allowed the
government and corporations
to exploit the disaster — paving
over poor neighborhoods with
more profitable housing and
commercial developments.
And now, after Hurricanes
Harvey and Irma, the poorest
people
affected
by
these
disasters, the ones hit the
hardest, will be subject to a
similar campaign. This is their
punishment for not buying a
coverage
policy
that
covers
actual flood costs.
It will occur because we’ll
move on. And I can already hear
the “tough love” criticisms of
those who are truly passionate
about government assistance:
“Let FEMA deal with them,
let the grossly over-budgeted
bureaucratic Flood Insurance
Program figure out what to do
with those poor people who
were either too dumb or not
working hard enough to buy
flood insurance on their homes.”
There is something to be said
about the speed in which we
handle these crises from afar.
How we rapidly horrify and
scare ourselves, engage on an
emotional and charitable level
and then so instantly move on
and forget.
Something
like
this
requires
months
and
years
of
rebuilding.
It
requires
hundreds of billions of dollars.
It requires an understanding
that governments, and only
governments,
are
capable
of
handling
such
massive
emergencies and cleanup efforts.
Something like this requires
us.
We
need
to
engage
and
participate,
not
just
through
a
constant
stream
of
charitable
donations
to
specific organizations, but an
engagement on a level that
requires journalism to respond.
For us to make sure those
poor people who lost their
homes find a way to rebuild.
To pressure our government
to secure funding for these
people, before we build that big,
beautiful wall on the Mexican
border. To slow down from the
clickbait disaster-prone-ridden
news that degrades our ability
to understand issues and work
toward solutions.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4— Tuesday September 19, 2017
REBECCA LERNER
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
EMMA KINERY
Editor in Chief
ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY
and REBECCA TARNOPOL
Editorial Page Editors
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.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns
Samantha Goldstein
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Anurima Kumar
Max Lubell
Lucas Maiman
Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Ali Safawi
Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Stephanie Trierweiler
Ashley Zhang
P
ictures coming out of
Williston,
N.D.,
and
Homer,
Alaska,
are
beginning to make me worry.
No,
my
anxiety
is
not
because
of
destructive
legislation coming from the
Oval Office. Nor is it because
I fear that the Harvey, Irma
and Jose family might want an
addition to their motley crew.
My anxiety lies with a
certain
gray-shirted,
blue-
jeaned,
Williston-
and
Homer-visiting
billionaire:
Mark Zuckerberg.
Early this year, Zuckerberg
announced his goal to visit
every state in the country in
the hopes of understanding
his
2
billion
users
better
by
“listening
and
learning
about how more people are
living, working and thinking
about
the
future.”He
has
since visited places ranging
from
the
attention-starved
pockets of middle America to
the more ethnically diverse
communities on the coasts.
Zuckerberg’s
exploits
in
these areas have been well
documented. Pictures from the
tour depicting an attentive and
beaming Zuckerberg candidly
injecting himself into the daily
lives of Nebraskan locomotive
engineers or Iowan cafe-goers
have been continually shared
to
his
nearly
100
million
Facebook followers.
To
the
casual
eye
scrolling through Facebook,
Zuckerberg’s tour seems to be
typical procedure for the CEO
of one of the most prominent
companies on Earth. CEOs
will often reach out to the
diverse members of their base,
learn from them and then,
ideally, act on behalf of them.
But Facebook is not a typical
company, Zuckerberg is not a
typical CEO and politicking
today is far from typical.
What
differentiates
Facebook from other companies
is its gradually materializing
monopoly
on
political
change and persuasion. With
Facebook’s 2 billion users and
the revelation of fake news,
Zuckerberg currently presides
over an apparatus unrivaled
in its power to discreetly sway
public opinion.
Zuckerberg’s recent actions
suggest that not only has he
started to recognize these
unique powers but that he
is keen on using them to
rework his own image. His
announcement
proclaiming
that, in the face of his long-
held atheist identification, he
now views “religion as very
important”; his hiring of Joel
Benenson, Hillary Clinton’s
campaign chief strategist; and,
yes, his heavily advertised
50-state tour conducted under
the guise of brand building
rather
than
cross-country
campaigning suggest a push
to align himself with more
mainstream beliefs held by the
general U.S. populace.
The upshot of all this is
starting to become abundantly
clear: Zuckerberg acts and
projects like a man positioning
himself for a public office run
in the near future.
Irrespective of policy, this is
a terrifying prospect.
First,
let’s
not
forget
Facebook
and
Zuckerberg’s
outsized influence in enabling
the vitriol and disinformation
of
the
2016
presidential
election cycle. In late August,
the company replaced all the
human editors in its Trending
section with an algorithm.
Within 72 hours, a bogus
story from endingthefed.com
about how Fox News anchor
Megyn Kelly was fired for
surreptitiously
supporting
Clinton made its way to the top
of the section, where it stayed
for a few hours.
A joint team of Harvard
and Massachusetts Institute
of
Technology
researchers
further implicated Facebook
in a study of media failure in
2016. The team researched
more than 1.25 million stories
published between April 1,
2015, and Election Day and
found that “a media network
anchored
around
Breitbart
developed as a distinct and
insulated media system, using
social media as a backbone
to transmit a hyper-partisan
perspective to the world.”
Nevertheless, Zuckerberg has
not shied away from defending
Facebook’s
innocence.
In
January, Zuckerberg professed,
“I’m actually quite proud of the
impact that we were able to have
on civic discourse over all.”
The naivete of Zuckerberg’s
response
is
concerning
as
more and more people find
their news on Facebook. He
is in the midst of opening
himself
up
to
showcase
his
all-Americanness
and
humanitarianism,
yet
he
cowers and deflects when
faced with one of the greatest
weapons
to
democracy
in
recent memory. Fake news
and
disinformation,
often
originating
from
foreign
actors as in the case of last
year’s election cycle, ironically
enough, legitimately influence
the distortion of public opinion.
Look
no
further
than
the most recent round of
troubling news to directly
find Facebook’s role in the
aforementioned
nexus.
Last
Wednesday,
Facebook
disclosed
to
congressional
investigators
that
between
June 2015 and May 2017
it sold $100,000 worth of
advertisements to a Kremlin-
linked
Russian
company
that sought to target voters
through
“troll”
accounts.
Most of the purchased ads
focused on divisive issues
ranging “from LGBT matters
to race issues to immigration
to
gun
rights,”
according
to a note published by Alex
Stamos, the company’s chief
security officer.
Facebook’s enabling of its
own subversion should give
Zuckerberg no reason to be
proud. The company ruefully
failed to combat fake news
and sinister foreign influence,
and, in the process, helped
to elect the most unqualified
candidate to the highest office
in the land.
Perhaps
that
surprising
result has helped Zuckerberg
realize the political gold mine
he has on his hands. Perhaps
he is leveraging that influence
to build a foundation for loftier
goals. After all, he supervises
the data of nearly 2 billion
users, and it seems that this
data has told him to project a
carefully orchestrated veneer
of
corn
husking,
religion
embracing
and
aggressive
Facebook gloating.
But Zuckerberg needs to
read between the lines. As
Facebook reached the frontier
of media influence during
the
presidential
election,
he propagated and enabled
nefarious doings. Zuckerberg’s
shortcomings in addressing
the fake news, his compliance
in
foreign
subversion,
his
cavalier attitude and, most
importantly,
his
unilateral
control and mishandling on a
media tool powerful enough
to
swing
elections
should
render null any of his public
office ambitions.
But that does not mean he
will at least give it a shot.
Zuckerberg is smart enough
to see that, with a little magic
from Facebook, inexperienced
billionaires are one for one in
winning.
Horrify, comfort, forget, repeat
MICHAEL MORDARSKI | COLUMN
Zuckerberg 2020?
LUCAS MAIMAN | COLUMN
Lucas Maiman can be reached at
lmaiman@umich.edu.
S
ome of this year’s biggest
political issues have not
been the big, drawn-out
battles that take place in Lansing
or Washington, D.C. Important
issues like housing, jobs and taxes
are debated right here in Ann
Arbor by our local government,
a government that has little input
from one of Ann Arbor’s most
influential groups: students at the
University of Michigan.
While it may not be evident
to most students, Ann Arbor’s
City Council has been locked
in a fierce election over for the
past few months. The Aug. 8
Democratic Primary election
saw
heated
mudslinging
between
anti-development
candidate David Silkworth and
current incumbent Chip Smith.
Blogs such as “Local in Ann
Arbor” and papers such as Ann
Arbor Observer hurled posts
about each candidate’s politics
for months. Even after the
primary ended, independent
candidates
including
Ali
Ramlawi
—
owner
of
the
Jerusalem Garden restaurant
— declared candidacy over
dissatisfaction with the results
of the primary election.
While it may be easy to
brush these things off as simply
village politics that don’t matter
to
students,
City
Council’s
responsibilities
actually
include some of the most
salient and visible policy items
in the Ann Arbor community.
Hot-button issues like the deer
cull and the ongoing debate
over the Library Lot high-
rise will likely be brought into
focus in the next council cycle.
These issues may not seem like
monumental
policy
actions
to many students, but issues
that do matter to students
— including rising housing
costs
and
city-University
cooperation fall on the hands of
the council, which seldom has
enough student input to fairly
represent the needs of young
people. We don’t realize it, but
frequently, Ann Arbor has more
control over our everyday lives
outside of the classroom than
the University does.
Simply
looking
at
Ann
Arbor’s gerrymandered ward
map will point the viewer to
the obvious conclusion that
Central
Campus,
and
the
heavily
student-populated
neighborhoods surrounding it,
have been sliced up in a way
that no one ward contains the
voices of students, and that
the concerns of students can
be placed on the back burner
of all 10 council members. A
student living in the West Quad
Residence Hall would have a
different council member than
a student who lived across
the street at the South Quad
Residence Hall. These two
students would be represented
differently
than
someone
who lived on Tappan Avenue,
mere steps away. All of this is
in spite of the fact that Ann
Arbor’s population according
to
the
census
—
which
determines federal funding and
congressional
representation
— includes students at their
campus addresses.
This
creates
a
dynamic
where student members of the
Ann Arbor community won’t
feel represented by their own
government. The intentional
disempowerment
of
student
residents is also echoed by the
fact that City Council elections
are decided in August, during
the partisan primary — a time
when many students are away
for vacations, internships or
summer jobs — leaving the
election in the hands of a few
committed
local
residents.
In fact, until this year, City
Council races were held in non-
congressional off-years, leading
to even lower turnout and even
less public participation.
While the city of Ann Arbor
recently established its Student
Advisory Council, the roster
for the committee currently
only
lists
councilmember
Julie Grand, D-Ward 3 with
the contact information for
getting involved being listed
as
“TBD.”
The
stunning
lack of representation of the
more than 40,000 students
who attend the University of
Michigan, with 10,000 students
confirmed to be living in Ann
Arbor is unacceptable for a city
that prides itself on being an
epicenter of progressive public
policy. If every Ann Arbor-
based canvasser with an anti-
gerrymandering or pro-voting
rights petition approached local
politics with the same furor
that they approach Republican-
led gerrymandering or voter
suppression in the state House,
then Ann Arbor’s City Council
would have seen a dramatic
restructuring years ago.
I urge students to stay
aware of local political issues,
and to contact their City
Council member about issues
of importance, and to always
vote in local elections, even
if that requires an absentee
ballot. I also urge the city
of Ann Arbor to focus on
equal representation of all its
residents. Reforms including
redrawing wards to include
a student-focused member of
council, or including at-large
or ex officio student members
of council will go a long way
to ensuring that all voices are
heard in the political process.
Many of us students may
only be four-year Ann Arbor
residents,
but
the
student
population
of
Ann
Arbor
will continue to exist for as
long as there is a University
of Michigan. If our current
political state of affairs has
taught us anything, it is that
participation
in
government
at all levels, is crucial to the
advancement and success of
democracy. Staying involved in
Ann Arbor is no different.
Student voices matter in local politics
Zuckerberg’s
recent actions
suggest that not
only has he started
to recognize these
unique powers
but that he is keen
on using them to
rework his own
image.
KEVIN SWEITZER | OP-ED
MICHAEL
MORDARSKI
Kevin Sweitzer is an Editorial Board
member.
Michael Mordarski can be reached
at mmordars@umich.edu.
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and
op-eds. Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-
eds should be 550 to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name
and University affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.