Author: Danielle Levy

Sometimes the smallest thing can speak loudly. In this case it is numbers an independent TV station in Munich, Germany, is broadcasting in a corner of it screen, the times of the beginning and end of the Ramadan fast. During the month of Ramadan, Muslims fast between sunrise and sunset. It is a gesture towards the Muslim community, but in an era of such resistance to immigrants and particularly Muslim immigrants, it acquires much meaning. Yet, the head of marketing at the station put it more simply, “One can theorize a lot about integration, but we simply wanted to send a clear signal for once.”
Why couldn’t other stations in Germany, Europe and the U.S. send the same signal too?

Food security is not something most of us think about. Yet it is a problem for over a billion people, some one sixth the planet’s population. That’s why what the United States did recently is noteworthy. Through the Department of Agriculture it will spend $3.5 billion over the next three years to boost food sufficiency in developing countries. The money will be used for research, technology, farm supplies and market access. Often developing countries have a problem with food storage as well as a poor infrastructure, both of which affect farmers’ chances to sell their products at competitive prices. The problem is even more acute when once considers that by 2050 the world’s population is to reach 9 billion. Food shortages, as well as rising prices for grains like wheat, are sure to exacerbate the situation. All the more reasons to hail the planned help. It is not only a humanitarian gesture, it answers a political, social and economic need and does it in a way that helps people help themselves.

The 99 cents Only Stores are being sued because despite their name they have raised their prices .99 of a cent. This way they could keep the 99 cents in the name with reasonable accuracy. That is not good enough for some, however, who feel that given their name of 99 cents since they are now essentially charging a dollar per item, puts many at a disadvantage. For example older people and lower income families who they say now feel duped. In reply the company said that the increase was well publicized. How well, may be subjective, but it was publicized. Which all leaves one to wonder if lower income families and older people can actually be so easily taken in? If not then the whole case affronts their intelligence. If so, then those who filed the lawsuit ought to look for a cause with more substantive rewards. Either way, it does make one question the meaning of a frivolous lawsuit.

There was a discussion in New York not long ago about the role of the media in covering human-trafficking. On the one hand there were people like UN under secretary-general Antonio Mario-Acosto, executive director for the UN Office of Drugs and Crime, who believed at most the media gets a C because “the media has failed to create a sense of anger in the population.” On the other there were people like George Daniels, an associate professor of Journalism at the University of Alabama, who thought that “the media reflects the reality of society.” The exchange which took place at a panel discussion organized by the UN Office of Drugs and Crime and the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism at Brandeis University does prompt one to think of the role of the press in general and with human trafficking in particular. Contemporary media tends to be segmented by small niches speaking to the choir of their respective constituencies. While that gives audiences or readers a sense of comfort it does not inform them in the same way. Human trafficking is as unconscionable as it is odious. If we were better informed about its tentacles wouldn’t we angrier, or at least less silent?