[news.misc] News slanted by censorship?

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  Bitnet

ruthb@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!sierch

brad@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)