porges (02/27/83)
#R:ucbesvax:2900008:inmet:11800002:000:1406 inmet!porges Feb 25 13:42:00 1983 I don't disagree with most of what you say, but I think the response "We have a controlled press in this country" is not the way to express what goes on. The phrase "controlled press" needs a subject. Do you mean that the government controls the press (obviously false), that the government TRIES to INFLUENCE the press (obviously true), that the government tries to influence the press and is highly sucessful (fertile debating ground indeed, but probably endless source of circling and swirling arguments), or something else? You should bear in mind that those on the right also think that the press is controlled -- by "forces on the left". (Of course the mere fact of both accusations existing doesn't mean that it couldn't be more true in one direction than in the other.) The "press" -- even the Big 3 network newses -- is paranoid enough about its independence that efforts to influence coverage directly are usually not helpful to the attempters. (Remember how when the Saudis tried to get "Death of a Princess" off the air PBS ended up having to make sure they showed it BECAUSE of the pressure? If you want to claim that the accumulated prejudices of the people who do the news influence what gets on, I'll go for that 100% .. but how else would you have it? Thank you and come again, -- Don Porges ...harpo!inmet!porges ...hplabs!sri-unix!cca!ima!inmet!porges
turner (03/01/83)
#N:ucbesvax:2900008:000:3863
ucbesvax!turner Feb 24 03:17:00 1983
There's a misinterpretation going on here that I don't feel
responsible for: it is not the demonstrators who were seeking a
forum (which you mistakenly equate with press coverage.) Rather,
the demonstrators were protesting the LACK of free speech in those
countries for which Kirkpatrick is a professional apologist. I have
taken pains to point this out repeatedly.
Certainly, this protest is getting press coverage. Whether the
demonstrator's cause has been damaged remains to be seen.
A personal anecdote:
The group staging this protest (Students Against Intervention
in El Salvador - or SAINTES, drolly enough) had, in 1980, invited
representatives from the main aboveground resistance movement in
El Salvador to give a presentation on recent developments in that
country. There was a short film and short speech.
The short speech was about a massacre on the border of Honduras
and El Salvador, where Honduran troops had, in cooperation with
the Salvadoran forces in pursuit, blocked a group of refugees, and
cornered them at a bend on a river bank. This group of refugees
consisted mostly of older men, women and children. Salvadoran troops
opened fire on them after they had been safely moved into a convenient
position. Upon hearing rumors of this incident, representatives
of church and human rights organizations went to investigate.
They couldn't see the bodies for the vultures. The death toll
was around 600.
I heard this story in the fall of 1980. This was at least four
months after it had happened. It was another FIVE months after this
presentation before it reached the papers in my area. And then it was
treated rather lightly, and disappeared.
In the meantime, visiting home for Christmas, I told my father
what I had learned. He was deeply shocked. He asked, "But...
why haven't we heard about this?" This was still several months
before the story reached the papers in dilute form.
And I gave him the only answer I could think of, given the timely
exposure of this incident everywhere else in the world (except the
U.S. and El Salvador.) I told him, "We have a controlled press in
this country." My father is a conservative man, who would normally
have objected to this statement. This time, however, he was too
confused. He felt hurt that his ears had somehow been judged too
sensitive for certain kinds of news. He had no response.
Do you see the point I'm trying to make? Perhaps it IS "boorish"
to shout down a U.N. Ambassador. Maybe being so vocal in this way
does harm to the cause of truth. Perhaps shrill screams are of
no avail against injustice.
But please exercise your imagination to this extent: think of
shrill screams against injustice all around you on a river bank
in Central America, while machine-gun bullets shred you and your
family into meat for birds. Hey, this is real! This is the Fascism
that Americans feel so morally superior about having defeated in
World War II. American tax dollars feed it. American corporations
make money on it. American politicians get elected on platforms of
keeping it alive as a bulwark against International Terrorism.
And American newspapers cover it up.
So I've had it with "freedom of speech" snobs. Heckling (and
snappy come-backs to hecklers) is a well-honed part of the political
process in places like England. Only Ivy League prima donnas get all
miffed when someone tries to make them look silly. Smart people with
something to say can defend themselves. And if Jeane Kirkpatrick can't?
Draw your own conclusions.
Shrilly, Arrogantly, Irrationally, Stupidly
and Boorishly Yours in Ignorance of Basic Human Rights,
Michael Turnerturner (03/01/83)
#R:ucbesvax:2900008:ucbesvax:2900013:000:2468
ucbesvax!turner Mar 1 04:32:00 1983
Point taken. I think your idea of "accumulated bias" theory is
about as far as I would want to go. I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
There is, as you point out, a similar rightist argument. In its
detailed form, it accuses the media at large of promulgating an
ideological/theological bete noir of theirs: Secular Humanism. In the
eyes of the Moral Majority, it's the next worst thing to Godless
Communism, if not effectively identical.
The operation of accumulated bias in the media has to be combatted
with weapons that the Moral Majority lacks, else this sort of thing
would be used by them. The far right in this country seems mostly
interested in whatever fabrications will gain it the most attention.
("The New Missile Gap", "Sexual Promiscuity Taught In Schools", etc.)
This National Enquirer mentality extends to muckraking T.V.
journalism (e.g., 60 minutes), which tends to avoid issues which might
upset its liberal constituency. Proxmire has been exploiting this
sort of mentality for decades.
The media is therefore not characterized in this country so much
by a leftward/rightward/centrist bias as it is by this attitude of
exploiting existing mentalities, rather than fostering newer and
broader ones. The narrower an audience, the better -- marketing is
more efficient when you know your audience. This is the bias of
advertising. (Are YOU really getting your 60 minutes worth? No.)
Do attention-getting tactics such as the anti-Kirkpatrick demon-
stration actually do much to change this? I don't know. But maybe
they have the effect of straining people's perception of the world.
When things are not as they should be (e.g., students docile) even
TV newscasters take note. I remember, over a period of about three
years, the inflection of Vietnam casualty reporting on the nightly
news changing from guarded optimism ("we're winning this war, I
guess") to obvious disdain ("where do they get these numbers, anyway?").
In the process of killing all those Vietnamese three or four times
over, something happened. A mentality was shaken. This is important,
even if it isn't "constructive".
I'm rambling. (I'm burning out on this issue. Some of you are
glad to hear that, I know.) In closing, I guess I'll just paraphrase
America's adopted uncle:
"That's Not Quite The Way It Is"
Michael Turner