wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (06/16/88)
In article <224@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >In article <3939@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu>, max@trinity.uucp (Max Hauser) writes: >> In article <113@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: >> | In article <386@blic.BLI.COM> ruthb@blic.BLI.COM (Ruth Bevan) writes: >> | >While Canada is no Utopia, I assure you they see a lot less of government >> | >intervention than we do. Their news isn't censored to give an unbelievable >> | >pro-American slant on all international issues, ... >> | >> | I fail to see any pro-American slant in news reporting in this country ... >> >> >> Exactly. > >Uh, I'm sure Mr. Hauser thought he was being so clever, but Mr. Paul isn't >an American. (I'm not sure *where* he's from, but I know he's not one of >US. Therefore, my inclination is to think that perhaps his remarks may >be meaningful when says he doesn't see a pro-American slant. I'm from Austria, if that has any significance. I've received a couple of messages pointing out specific pro-American articles or, in one case, the fact that the NYT did not give the arrest for drug smuggling of the Honduran Ambassador to Panama the prominence the writer thought it should get. I won't deny that there are conservative papers and magazines, and even broadcast networks/outlets; however, in the four years I've been here and even before that the dominating factor in public debate in this country has been to always suspect the worst motives behind actions of US officials and to give the benefit of the doubt to the Russians, the Cubans, etc. To clarify further, Ruth Bevan claimed that news reporting in this country has a pro-American slant BECAUSE OF CENSORSHIP. That is clearly nonsense. If there were censorship, Iran/Contra would never have leaked. Earlier, Watergate would never have leaked. Conservative newspapers report things in a pro-American fashion because their owners/editors follow their convictions; I assume that "liberal" newspapers report the way *they* do because they in turn follow their own convictions. Ms. Bevan makes the mistake extremists both on the right and on the left make so often: to assume that someone expresses an opinion they don't share because they are being pressured, or have some evil motive. No doubt there are people on both sides who do have ulterior motives, or who compromise their convictions and integrity for one reason or another, but Ms. Bevan's blanket statement is rude and slanderous, and not based on fact. I suspect that Canadian law gives the government much greater opportunity for censorship than US law; certainly British law does, and the laws of most West European countries as well. Wolf Paul -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: ihnp4!killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-280-0585 EES PLANO UD
cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Charles Lord) (06/16/88)
PLEASE remove this discussion from comp.misc! Thanks!
--
Charles Lord
Cary, NC cjl@ecsvax.UUCP Usenet
cjl@ecsvax.BITNET Bitnetruthb@blic.BLI.COM (Ruth Bevan) (06/16/88)
In article <118@dcs.UUCP>, wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: > > To clarify further, Ruth Bevan claimed that news reporting in this country > has a pro-American slant BECAUSE OF CENSORSHIP. That is clearly nonsense. > I remember comparing the two countries and unfavorably viewing our news coverage. I don't remember saying this was because of CENSORSHIP but perhaps I hadn't taken my medicine that day! > Ms. Bevan makes the mistake extremists both on the right and on the left make > so often: to assume that someone expresses an opinion they don't share because > they are being pressured, or have some evil motive. Naughty, naughty..... "Extremist" quoth she? I'm only extremely bored by people who jump to conclusions, based on a 30 line Net posting!! > > Ms. Bevan's blanket statement is rude and slanderous, and not based on fact. At this point my sense of humor fails me. Rude and slanderous! What is that statement if not slanderous? Not based on fact is not the case, I've lived in Britain, Canada, Cyprus and of course mostly here. I've read reports of incidents while in these countries then come home to read an almost unbelievably different version of the same story. The absense of including international viewpoints is my main concern, no country shoud fail to view the impact of its behaviour on others countries. European press was screaming for a slow down in the buildup of nuclear weapons in the early 80's while we were lauding Reagan's return of this country to "strength" Our ABC coverage of the Olympics was so partisan as to be embarassing. What do we really know about the german attitude to medium range missile deployment on their soil? How about the continuing battle betweem Turk and Greek? Why are americans surprised to be treated badly in foriegn countrys? The attitude of those nationals is wrong but whats equally wrong is our lack of information on those attitudes. You need to slow down, take a few deep breaths and try thinking, its an enjoyable pasttime and may prevent these vitrolic outbursts. > > I suspect that Canadian law gives the government much greater opportunity This is my favorite line. When I discuss the countries I've lived in my statements are not based on fact, but your "suspicions" are? Why don't you find out about Canadian law? The national and provincial ombudsmen whose function is to prevent unfair bureaucracy would be a good place to start. While you're at it you may consider reading "How to Win Friends.....". >
sierch@well.UUCP (Michael Sierchio) (06/17/88)
Wolf, we have nothing to fear here from Big Brother. He doesn't NEED
to watch us -- we're all watching TV, and we believe every image we
see!
--
Michael Sierchio @ Small Systems Solutions
sierch@well.UUCP
{pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax,hoptoad}!well!sierchbrad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (06/17/88)
In article <118@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: >I suspect that Canadian law gives the government much greater opportunity >for censorship than US law; certainly British law does, and the laws of most >West European countries as well. Note the Followup-to: line. Move this discussion. For your informaton, from the Constitution of Canada: "Everyone shall have the following fundamental freedoms: ... (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." Quite strong, but then the Soviet constitution is pretty good too. It's true that there is more tolerance in Canada for government interference by many citizens, but that does not mean that everybody takes it lying down. Many of us oppose any law which even slightly opposes the above clause of the constitution. Recently the law forbidding hate literature was struck down. The government has a very hard time when it tries to muffle the press. It's usually only successful under the Official Secrets Act, and the anti-porn laws. I believe that the US government is also successful in these areas. But anybody who doesn't think the US media have a strong Hooray USA bias is wearing rose coloured glasses. (Except they have no "u" in colour.) -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 "USENET -- the world's least important network."
)) (06/18/88)
In article <118@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: >>> In article <113@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: >>> | In article <386@blic.BLI.COM> ruthb@blic.BLI.COM (Ruth Bevan) writes: >>> | >While Canada is no Utopia, I assure you they see a lot less of government >>> | >intervention than we do. Their news isn't censored to give an unbelievable >>> | >pro-American slant on all international issues, ... >>> | >>> | I fail to see any pro-American slant in news reporting in this country ... >>> > >I'm from Austria, if that has any significance. > >I've received a couple of messages pointing out specific pro-American articles >or, in one case, the fact that the NYT did not give the arrest for drug >smuggling of the Honduran Ambassador to Panama the prominence the writer >thought it should get. > >To clarify further, Ruth Bevan claimed that news reporting in this country >has a pro-American slant BECAUSE OF CENSORSHIP. That is clearly nonsense. >If there were censorship, Iran/Contra would never have leaked. Earlier, >Watergate would never have leaked. Conservative newspapers report things >in a pro-American fashion because their owners/editors follow their >convictions; I assume that "liberal" newspapers report the way *they* do >because they in turn follow their own convictions. I think perhaps she chose her words a little poorly. A better way of putting what I've noticed over the years is that news reporting in the US is far more "American-slanted" than Canadian news is "Canadian-slanted". You know, Mom, Apple Pie, flag waving etc. Yes, we get all sorts of screaming in our media about Govt. motives etc. (*far* more than you do), but our news shows us a lot more of what's going on in the world outside than yours does. Over *many* years of listening to American news (we've got major stations from all of your networks on our cable), it basically appears that American news broadcasting rarely carries stories that do not have an "American-angle", or give them very little play. Eg: terrorists blow up a plane with one American aboard - big news! Terrorists blow up a plane with no Americans aboard - minor mention if any. [Ditto especially on USENET]. Or, as during the '86 Olympics, one complaint was that NBC often only told you how the American athletes placed - and if it wasn't first, you never found out who *did* win. This isn't exaggeration! I had to read the papers the following day to find out who did win some of the events. I don't expect your news media to carry much about Canada, but failing to mention who won the Federal elections seems a little extreme - compare that to the coverage the US presidential elections get up here. I will admit that our media does the same thing, but nowhere near as bad. [As the old saw goes: "If 10000 UFO's flew over Buffalo, which one would get reported?" Answer: "Only the one that was on fire"...] >I suspect that Canadian law gives the government much greater opportunity >for censorship than US law; certainly British law does, and the laws of most >West European countries as well. If so, they're doing a remarkably bad job of it. -- Chris Lewis, Spectrix Microsystems Inc, Phone: (416)-474-1955 UUCP: {uunet!mnetor, utcsri!utzoo, lsuc, yunexus}!spectrix!clewis Moderator of the Ferret Mailing List (ferret-list,ferret-request@spectrix)
erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) (06/19/88)
In article <118@dcs.UUCP>, wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: [A short discussin about censorship in america] > I won't deny that there are conservative papers and magazines, and even > broadcast networks/outlets; however, in the four years I've been here and even > before that the dominating factor in public debate in this country has been > to always suspect the worst motives behind actions of US officials and to > give the benefit of the doubt to the Russians, the Cubans, etc. Ha. Benefit of doubt to the Russians? Tell that to the journalists being shot at in Afgahnastahn, Chile, and Panama, especially.. The media is just a little lighter on the Soviets than the government. "Self-censorship" does exist. It's also called "not attracting the governemnt's attention." Alexander Cockburn (one of the raging pit bulls on the left :-) is infuriated by the amount of self-censorship that goes on by the media. A couple of his examples: -- in 86 or so, there was substantial information that Noriega was involved in drug trafficing. No media companies sent people to investigate this. Noriega was still "a good guy", according to the U.S. Gov't. Now that he's "a bad guy", papers point back to the 1986 evidence and say "Since 1986 blah balh balh". -- So we hear about how bad the Soviets are for their afgahn actions. What about the Mujhadheen? They are radical, pro-Khomeni moslems that believe women are property, among other things. At least the Soviets discriminate equally... Personally, I'd rather back the Soviets. They aren't as fanatical, and treat people a *lot* better. I personally don't feel like supporting countries whose leaders (religious and political) advocate sewing up the vaginas of pre-pubescent females to protect their virginity and performing cliterectomies on them before they are married. (This still goes on, folks. It's done mostly by a few of the more radical Moslem sects.) Cockburn blames this on a trend that started in the late 70's: believing the White House, and repeating the "party line". For instance, the SALT II treaty. "Article 5 says: "You shall not test or deploy space-based systems." Now when it came to the day that the Regan administration wanted to test Star Wars they said, "We've taken a broad interpretation of Article 5. It says here we shall not test space-based systems. When you look at that closely, and you look at the print, it says, you *shall* test." It's a bit like the Ten Commandments. The broad interpretation of "Thou shalt not kill" when you look at it, and you get the lawyers working on it, it's "Thou *shou* kill." That's the broad interpretation. The narrow fuddy-duddy, old fasion interpretation is "Thou shalt not kill." And the press, sure enough, they began to say "Well, there's this thing called the 'broad interpretation' of Article 5 of the SALT II treaty," as expounded by the State Department Legal Advisor, Mr. Sofaer (former judge, he must know), and before you knew where you were, they were saying black is the same as white. It's like saying 'well, white is sorta like grey, and black is sorta like grey. Hey! Black is white!'" -- Alexander Cockburn, in a talk at the University of Houston. > To clarify further, Ruth Bevan claimed that news reporting in this country > has a pro-American slant BECAUSE OF CENSORSHIP. That is clearly nonsense. No it isn't. For instance, most newspapers won't give equal time to people who aren't acting in the "American intrest". To do so would bring on government action. Look at how Ted Kennedy got back at Murdoch for a mere flame. Imagine if the WSJ started backing the PLO. How long would it be before some senator or another tried to get them under the Sedition Acts? > If there were censorship, Iran/Contra would never have leaked. Earlier, Censorship can take many forms. There's censorship where homosexuality is concerned, but this doesn't affect things like Iranamok. KPFK in San Francisco is being sued (and is in danger of losing its operating liscense) because a play they aired that concerned homosexuality offended *one* person who happened to be flipping through several radio stations. > Watergate would never have leaked. Conservative newspapers report things I dunno. Nobody liked Nixon... > in a pro-American fashion because their owners/editors follow their > convictions; I assume that "liberal" newspapers report the way *they* do > because they in turn follow their own convictions. Is that to say that "liberal" newspapers are anti-American? Personally, I would consider conservative papers "xenophobic" and moderate/liberal papers "less xenophobic leaning towards normalcy". > I suspect that Canadian law gives the government much greater opportunity > for censorship than US law; certainly British law does, and the laws of most > West European countries as well. Maybe, maybe not. For instance, most European magazines can use nudity when they feel it neccessary. (A recent Der Spiegal cover comes to mind.) In America, it can be against the law: obscenity. In North Carolina, there are no longer "educational" or "scientific" clauses in the obscenity law. Showing a nude by Wyeth, Picasso, Dali, or any other artist is against the law. Classes on obscenity at several law schools have been dropped. Freedom of the press *started* in Britain. I think that their (British and west european) libel and invasion of privacy laws are much stricter, creating an illusion of censorship. Sorry for all the typos... -- "It was men made her that way, Skate UNIX or go home, boogie boy... it was us made her that way." -- from "Airhead" by Thomas Dolby J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007 ..!bellcore!tness1!/
fth6j@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU (Frank T. Hollander) (06/20/88)
> -- So we hear about how bad the Soviets are for their afgahn actions. What >about the Mujhadheen? They are radical, pro-Khomeni moslems that believe >women are property, among other things. At least the Soviets discriminate >equally... Personally, I'd rather back the Soviets. They aren't as Right. Let's back the Soviets in an invasion of Iran, also. No need to stop in Afghanistan. Let's have a co-invasion. Take up the White Man's Burden! Yeah!!!! Frank Hollander
36_5130@uwovax.uwo.ca (Kinch) (06/22/88)
In article <5287@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Charles Lord) writes: > > > PLEASE remove this discussion from comp.misc! Thanks! > -- > Charles Lord > Cary, NC cjl@ecsvax.UUCP Usenet > cjl@ecsvax.BITNET Bitnet Me thinks that Charles is taking his last name all too seriously! Dave Kinchlea CCS University of Western Ontario London, Ontario Canada (home of the most EXPENSIVE summit so far)