AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > April
April 2008
Is the media contributing to driving the economy into a tree?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Rebuttal
I agree with Shaunti that the job of the media is to present the actual news. So forgive me for being confused when she wants anchor folks to put down their sheath of notes and add a little sunshine to the financial forecast. Things are looking pretty grey out there, at least in part because the current administration seems to have forgotten what they learned in Econ 101: Out-of-control spending plus tax cuts equals a massive deficit.
It’s hard to fault Bush apologists for wanting to foist blame on media hype, but even most Republicans believe that neighborhoods filled with foreclosures do more to undermine consumer confidence than dramatic headlines. To remain viable, news may be presented with distracting flash these days (we can thank former GOP politico Roger Ailes and his FOX News Network for starting that trend), but the substance is still there. Like the new tone or not, the alternative is still unthinkable; Soviet-style press restrictions where the government decides what we should hear and how we should hear it.
The fact that 75 percent of Americans believe we’re in a recession has more to do with varying definitions of recession than anything else, and our desire to face down all the indicators of tough times ahead. “We are absolutely going to have a recession,” David Wessel, one member of the trustworthy financial press, declared in one interview. Wessel, Economics Editor for the Wall Street Journal, went on to explain that “the problem with predicting a recession is this — when it’s obvious you’re in a recession, it’s too late to do anything about it. But there’s no way to know for sure if you’re going to have one.” A frustrating reality, but most Americans are handling it well — still spending while making job, education and real estate decisions with an eye on the storm clouds.
Shaunti seems to share her Heritage Foundation spokesperson’s optimism for an economic pick-me-up by the end of this year. I hope she’s right, but if the next economic surge takes place during a Democratic administration, will they praise our new president for picking up the pieces? Or will that good fortune be a media illusion as well?
Should President Bush boycott the Olympic opening ceremonies?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
A big draw to my husband’s job transfer in 1995 was that we would be moving to a future Olympic city. Having the games in Atlanta was such an honor I made sure to be a part of it, even though I had just given birth. It’s troublesome that such a potentially unifying event — this year in China — is so often tinged with politics.
Yet when Hillary Clinton, John McCain and others transcend partisan politics in wanting President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies, I sit up and take notice. It looks like many Americans are doing the same, following continued abuses in Darfur and increasingly alarming events in Tibet. Less than a year ago, a Zogby International poll showed that 39 percent of Americans felt that the IOC shouldn’t have awarded the Olympics to China, due to their poor human rights record. A recent poll shows that now 70 percent of respondents feel that way.
One might argue that what’s done is done, and we should keep political friction off the field. I couldn’t agree more. Yet the opening ceremonies are not the games themselves. They’re a country’s shining hour, the glitzy A-list party with a spotlight on the unique achievements of a hosting nation. Olympic propaganda — remember Hitler’s triumph in 1936? — is a particularly effective way for closed societies to “prove” to their citizens that their actions must be right with the world. So it’s telling that few outside the Chinese press still dub a protest-plagued torch run with the P.R. manufactured tagline: “a journey of friendship, peace and harmony.”
Some have suggested that Bush should continue to state that he will attend the ceremony, while warning President Hu Juntao that growing political pressure is making it hard for him to stick to that plan. For all we know, the President is doing that right now, giving China an opportunity to save face while forcing change behind the scenes. I certainly hope so.
Over 300 gold medals will be handed out in Beijing this summer. We look forward to watching the U.S. garner our share of those, yet a gold in the commitment to human rights would be even more exciting.
Rebuttal
Anyone who argues that Bush should even consider boycotting the Opening Ceremonies doesn’t really understand China - and it is disturbing that everyone vying to be our next president seems to fall into that category. My father has worked in China for many years with the World Bank, and I’m the only one in my immediate family who hasn’t lived in China and doesn’t speak Chinese. But even with my indirect awareness, I reflexively winced when I first heard someone suggest the U.S. skip out to “send a message.”
It is precisely because the Opening Ceremonies are a country’s shining hour that a boycott would be the gravest insult to the proud Chinese people. The Chinese feel honored by the approaching Olympics, and have been preparing for it for seven years. As national security adviser Stephen Hadley recently explained, it’s not just important to “deal with Tibet issue,” but to recognize that “it’s also an issue of the Chinese people, who are very invested in the Olympics, who see it as a coming of age for China.”
People often forget that China is still a very developing country; most Chinese are still agrarian, and the country doesn’t expect telephone service to reach every village for another 12 years. Yes, in preparation for the Olympics the Communist government has made many hard-line decisions with which I deeply disagree. Yes, China’s handling of Tibet is extremely troubling, as are its many human-rights abuses. I am especially angered by persecution of millions in the underground church.
But it is also true that the country and its leaders have come a very long way in just a few decades - which is practically hasty for a civilization thousands of years old. Comparisons to Hitler and his systematic genocide are ludicrous. China’s leaders are at least trying to address issues that matter to its people and the world.
The whole point of the Olympics - from the moment the Opening Ceremonies start — is to set aside legitimate national differences and come together in a spirit of goodwill. Even the exiled Dalai Lama supports Beijing hosting the Olympics.
What we do about the Opening Ceremonies will indeed send a message to the people of China. Let’s hope it is the right one.
Should high schools conduct mandatory breathalyzers at dances and other events?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Every year during prom season, parents face the cruel worry that their child might be one of over 6,000 underage drinkers to die from an alcohol-related death. Mothers Against Drunk Driving reports that, “In 2004, during weekends around prom, graduation and homecoming, 47 percent of traffic crash fatalities of 15-20 year olds were alcohol-related.”
Much of that alcohol is consumed in and around the school party itself, and is a harsh equalizer: the kid that dies often isn’t the one who was drinking.
When schools hold functions knowing teens will be trying to drink, administrators have a moral obligation to protect them. It’s long overdue for schools to create a zero alcohol tolerance culture: Where all students know that they’ll take a mandatory breathalyzer to walk into (or out of) a school dance.
No one thinks twice about school metal detectors to catch weapons in high risk areas. Yet, in 2004, there were 2,825 gun deaths for children and teens; less than half the number of those underage drinking deaths. No one complains of mandatory drug testing for student athletes. Yet the volume and consequences of teen drinking are far greater.
After two high-profile tragedies, New Jersey principal Dr. William Trusheim created a comprehensive breathalyzer policy for his district. If students want to go to a dance they have to give advance permission to be breathalyzed - and take the test if selected. Or schools can test all students, to keep things equal.
Critics say blanket approaches penalize kids who are doing the right thing. But sober teens can still die at the hands of drunk ones. And as Trusheim explained in an interview, “We aren’t just trying to detect alcohol or drugs: we are trying to influence kids to not use them at all!” He says critics seem to have a double standard, “believing drugs are bad but alcohol is a right of passage.”
There should be no outrage over testing kids for something they legally can’t use and is dangerous to a still-developing brain. Instead, as certain Massachussets and other mandatory-testing schools have found, testing everyone changes the culture. Dr. Trusheim said, “The atmosphere at the dances is so much more positive now. It takes the pressure off from kids having to deal with others drinking.”
Rebuttal
It’s a scary world out there, and thousands of teen fatalities are not to be taken lightly. Yet when tackling the thorny issue of how to protect young people, I like to temper my panic with a little logic.
I actually do think twice about school metal detectors, based on conversations with teachers in the trenches and my own experience in the New York City school system as a counselor. Kids brag about slipping weapons through these expensive security systems and frequently miss class, waiting in long search lines.
I also think twice about the notion of breathalyzer tests for every student at a dance. Many of us find that when adolescence itself is criminalized, teens equate confiding in authority figures with “being busted” instead of getting help for at-risk situations. Treat every student like a law-breaker, and you risk losing the one thing that helps kids the most — a trusting relationship with caring adults.
On the other hand, using the breathalyzer with some discretion makes sense. That way, you actually catch inebriated attendees who arrogantly think they won’t be spotted. Test every student and drinkers simply skip the event. Sure, the school avoids liability — bully for them. Yet how does this do anything to keep underage drinkers off the roads? More productive in my mind is a local principal who urges parents not to let their children go to after-parties. These alcohol-fueled events are a “disaster-waiting-to-happen” he explains in an annual letter, spelling out the specific dangers of unsupervised free-for-alls.
Unfortunately, some adults contribute to the danger. A research facility affiliated with the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention offers an eye-opening statistic. According to the group, a third of alcohol sales profits come from purchasing minors. So much for rigid ID checks. In addition, indulgent parents who think it’s safest to let kids drink at home merely add to the tragedy count.
What a message we’re giving young people — checking them all for intoxication in one scenario, handing over drinks in another. If we really want to make sure the kids are alright, let’s skip both over reaction and collusion, opting instead for respectful limit-setting. After all, we’re the adults here, right?
Should the bedroom escapades of politicians matter to voters?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
No sooner does the Governor of New York resign amid discovery of an alarming addiction to high-priced call girls than his replacement confesses that he, too, has strayed in his marriage. Combine that with the unsavory image of the former Governor of New Jersey, his wife and a certain chauffeur and the news networks begin to look like some mid-season replacement show, Desperate Politicians.
Eliot Spitzer was probably right to resign given the media circus surrounding him. Yet as a nation, we have become dangerously confused about public and private behavior as it relates to how we view our political leaders.
It’s not that Americans should take scandalous behavior with a grain of salt. I remember the fury that I felt when we heard about the Monica Lewinsky affair, knowing that young people would be exposed to the sordid details. I hated that President Clinton’s recklessness would distract us from more important concerns, and surely damage the Democrats for years to come (no matter that at least one of the Republicans leading the charge against him, Newt Gingrich, was a serial adulterer himself.)
As for Clinton’s actual behavior? Since he isn’t my husband, I just couldn’t see what business it was of mine. Unfortunately constant network coverage of a juicy scandal means that the court of public opinion favors the temperate drinker and faithful spouse, no matter how he governs. In this day and age, even FDR and Thomas Jefferson couldn’t pass the test of folks like the blogger who plaintively asks, “If a man doesn’t show good judgment in his marriage, can we trust him to keep us safe and balance the budget?”
Of course we can. A philandering politician, while damaging his own home life, can nonetheless enact legislation that provides safeguards for other families. Happens all the time.
I’d love to see more focus on the big issues, more constituents demanding substantive conversation on political behavior that affects all of us, from the air that we breathe to the countries we invade. If we’re really out to change the next generation, let’s become a citizenry more outraged by legislative recklessness than bedroom escapades.
Rebuttal
I tire of hearing about politicians’ sexual misconduct as much as Andy, but for a different reason. The misconduct shouldn’t be happening in the first place.
Spitzer was right to resign not because the media circus made him ineffective but because he was exposed as a hypocrite and a liar. President Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky (yes, any sex is an affair) was cause for fury not just because young people would hear sordid details, but because of the regrettable lack of self-control and responsibility it revealed in his character. What could be a “more important concern” than the personal reliability of the people to whom we’ve entrusted the most public responsibility? As General Schwarzkopf once said “Leadership is a combination of strategy and character. If you must be without one, be without the strategy.”
Our elected leaders are imperfect human beings just like the rest of us. But unlike private citizens, they take an oath to uphold the public trust. And they deserve every bit of scrutiny they get when they lie, sneak around and arrogantly place themselves above the law. Our alarm isn’t really about the sexual tryst itself, or even their obvious lack of good judgment: it’s about our ability to trust our leaders. If someone can set aside a lifelong vow to the person they care about most, they’ll have little problem breaking a vow to the general populace if it becomes expedient.
Spitzer resigned so New York could move on. Unfortunately, Detroit isn’t so lucky: a perfect example of personal indiscretions affecting public business. Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick had an affair with a staffer, sent her racy text messages, fired the Deputy Police Chief for asking questions about misconduct, then flatly denied the affair under oath. He is now being brought up on felony charges, including perjury. The City Council called for his resignation, but Kilpatrick refuses to step down. And the city has lost millions in business revenue because of it.
After Governor Paterson took over from Governor Spitzer with his own infidelity confession, a SurveyUSA poll asked “is [a politicians’ affair] the public’s business?” Seven in ten said yes, either always or depending on the circumstances. The ability to trust our leaders still matters to most of us. As it always should.
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Commentary
By Shaunti Feldhahn
Sometimes I wonder whether reporters willfully trade Econ 101 for ratings. We’re not in a recession, but the average person thinks we are - mostly because economic news is covered to inject the most negative drama. A succession of news anchors recently intoned that the unemployment rate “surged” from 4.8 percent to 5.1percent.
Not once have I heard a reporter add, “Now, just so you know, we’re still at what economists consider full employment, and this uptick is expected to be corrected soon.”
Why is it that bad news gets covered - but not enough to also explain the very real good news? (For example, have you heard any coverage of states like Texas hitting their lowest unemployment numbers ever?) It would be one thing if we really were in a recession, but after one quarter of correction, we’ve had two quarters of positive growth.
To someone losing a job, it understandably feels like crisis time. And some states and some sectors (like housing) are truly struggling. Certain factors - like fuel and healthcare costs - are indeed hurting the economy. But in general, the economy still isn’t nearly as badly off as the media makes it out to be. The problem, of course, is the more people believe we’re in a recession, the more they’ll hold back spending - and create a self-fulfilling prophesy.
In an interview, Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow Dr. J.D. Foster predicted our next likely economic and media trends. “Late in 2008, we will move to 4 percent growth. Now, the media will probably push the recession story as long as they can, grab the bad news instead of good news — every layoff from a company — even when growth is accelerating. Unemployment claims should drop, and industrial production is already up — but they will ignore that, even though those are good economic indicators to watch. Thankfully, the financial press has a different market, so people who need good information will find it there.”
Legendary former 60 Minutes producer Don Hewitt recently responded to criticism of presidential debate coverage with acknowledgement that coverage includes “a big dose of show biz” and “trying to keep an audience.” He said, “When you’re in television, that’s your job.”
Funny, I thought their job was to present the actual news.