stu3@mhuxh.UUCP (Mark Modig) (11/20/84)
>> Well, the Reagan administration just admitted that there were not MIG 21's >> on the Burkiana. But that won't matter because the charge has served its >> purpose-to put people into a warlike mood against Nicaragua. > > I wonder why Reagan administration's admission that they were not MIGs > didn't get as much coverage by the press as did his accusations > earlier that they were. > > Maybe that says something about the alleged "impartiality" of > the American press. > > - raghu > Hmmm... dunno where you got this from. I found this out the Thursday after the election; it was in the paper and on the evening news. I usually read the paper in the morning and try to watch at least a little news on the tube at night--- lulls me into thinking I am well informed. Plus, if there is something going on that really catches my interest, I usually will make a greater than usual effort to keep informed. Besdies, 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. This is one of the reasons I don't like to depend solely on the morning paper or the nightly news to stay informed. Mark Modig ..ihnp4!btlunix!mom
raghu@rlgvax.UUCP (Raghu Raghunathan) (11/29/84)
> > 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. 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. 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. seismo!rlgvax!raghu