stu3@mhuxh.UUCP (Mark Modig) (12/03/84)
Even numbers of > is Mark Modig, odd is Raghu Raghunathan [Apologies if I spelled your name wrong] >> > Maybe that says something about the alleged "impartiality" of >> > the American press. > >> I have never been under the illusion that the American >> press and media were impartial; just that they seem to have an >> extraordinary amount of freedom to decide what they will and will >> not cover and how they will cover it. >> >> Mark Modig >> ..ihnp4!btlunix!mom > > I really meant to use the word "objectivity" in my original posting, > not "impartiality". Sorry for the bad choice of words. What I had > believed so far was that the US press was objective in its news > coverage, giving both sides of every story and not slanting the > coverage with the personal opinions of the newspeople or the > interests of the government officials. > > Infact, I have known many news programs being advertised (on TV) > as being objective and fair, and go to great depth to cover the news > from many points of view. But apparently when it comes to covering > foreign policy issues, especially involving Central America and the > fictitious MIGs, the US press knows of only the Administration's > point of view. Granted, the MiGs did not suddenly materialise out of the crates. But I never was aware that there were actually MiGs in the crates; all the coverage I heard just as the story broke said there were reports that the crates might contain MiGs. One story went into detail about satellite photos and etc. But no report on TV or in newspapers I saw EVER said "There are MiGs in those crates", or words that conveyed the same positive content (no room for guessing, it was an established fact). How did I learn that our illustrious Administration had jumped the gun yet again? Through the same press that you say is obviously biased. > The US press might be free to choose what it wants to cover, but if > chooses to ignore all developments not favorable to the Administration > or the US interests, then it is no better than any State Run news > media which chooses not to report any news that might hurt it's image. I was not aware that State Run news media are concerned about public image in the same way that the American press is. I disagree strongly that the press in this country chooses to ignore all developments not favorable to the Administration or US interests. Where did I hear about the CIA manuals? From the American press. I thought the recent Presidential campaign brought out some issues that were not favorable to the Administration. The debates, for example, particularly the second one, which dealt with foreign policy, contained some very nasty questions posed by the members of the press to both Reagan and Mondale. The fact that both of them ignored the questions completely says something bad about them, not about the press. My general experience has been that the American media LOVE to take shots at politicians. Even the L. A. Times, which I would consider to be a somewhat conservative paper, has taken time out to let Reagan and the Administration and Congress and the state politicians have it time and time again. My impression is that the media is far from being happy with the Administration; rather, they are frustrated because of the carefully laid plans to keep Reagan away from reporters and to have him dodge potentially embarrassing questions at news conferences. I've seen several; time and again Reagan will dodge a question or just plain refuse to answer. This is hardly in his interest, so if the press are in cahoots with him, why would they try to make him look bad? > The purpose of the press is just dissemination of cold bare > facts so the public can form it's own opinions. It is not for the > press to influence the opinions of the public by their calculated > selectivity in the coverage of the news. But obviously everything cannot be covered. So what do you keep and what do you throw away? This is where the concept of "what's NEWS" comes in. It would be nice if the press was just interested in cold bare facts, in fact that may be the way it should be. The trouble is, each newspaper or TV network or whatever has to worry about the competition. So, there are efforts by each group to select what they think the public wants to see. It's almost sort of a loop in that if you select the right stuff and (unfortunately this is a consideration, too) present it in a way that catches attention (the words "graphics", "live", and "minicam" spring to mind), then more people watch or read you. And so the public determines what it likes by watching or reading what it likes, and the news agencies try to decide what is most likely to attract the public. [Hmm.. I hope I explained that OK, the point is that the public, not the media, really determines what is watched. If the American people aren't interested in certain developments, it is not the fault of the media for not presenting those developments.] One benificial side effect of this is that there is competition for exclusive stories or to be the first to report a new story or development, something you don't see when all media is run by the government and a potentially embarassing event takes place. I am not saying that the American press is always impartial, but I do reject the claim that it is systematically biased towards Administration views on foreign policy issues, or any issues for that matter. Mark Modig ihnp4!attunix!mom ^^^^^^^ Note new address.....