Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!limbo!taylor
From: taylor@intuitive.com (Dave Taylor)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Re: Computer Communication and the Gulf War
Message-ID: <1665@limbo.Intuitive.Com>
Date: 28 Jan 91 23:27:27 GMT
Sender: taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com
Organization: Intuitive Systems, Mountain View, California  +1 (415) 966-1151
Lines: 82
Approved: taylor@Limbo.Intuitive.Com

Thom Gillespie asks about the use of technology and computers
as a vehicle for communication and information dissemination in
the Gulf War currently raging in the Middle East.  A few thoughts:

First off, there are Usenet groups specifically discussing the 
war: "alt.desert-storm" and "alt.desert-storm.facts" (demonstrating
by their very names the continuing clash between fact and opinion)
Prior to the actual launch of the offensive, there was a group in
the same heirarchy "alt.desert-shield" which transitioned.

Secondly, I'm sure that there are not only other groups discussing
the topic, but I know that there are other mailing lists that have
information from Israeli correspondents showing up regularly.  In
particular, CRTNet has done a great job of reporting not only on
what's going on in Israel, but adding thoughtful comments about the
importance and limitations of computer-based media in a situation
like the Gulf War.

Whether the NBC national news covers the peace demonstrations is,
most unfortunately, a function of their belief in whether they can
get "the best ratings" of the news shows competing for the viewer
dollar.  The National Broadcasting Company ultimately cares little
as a commercial organization about the morals and ethics of the 
current situation; they're more concerned with people flipping to
CNN instead of NBC for the news, taking away their advertising 
revenue.  It's a hard fact of our capitalistic society.  (by the
same token, how many companies that have donated to the troops have
done it out of a feeling of patriotism and support?  If they did,
why the press releases?  Why the stories about them?  Sadly, there
are quite a few companies around the world cashing in on the war,
ignoring the death and destruction to both sides)

Last week the Wall Street Journal had a very interesting article
about computer BBS systems located in Israel and elsewhere, where
submissios from throughout the Middle East were de rigeur and were
avidly read by those not in the thick of things.  I recommend that
you check it out, Thom; page one, column four, from either Thursday
or Friday of last week.

The people of Iraq, by the way, can't communicate with us via
electronic means because they haven't the technology to do so, for
the most part.  Additionally, there are significant problems with
not only getting any electricity but in finding working phone lines
that aren't being pre-empted by diplomatic/official uses.  I also
wonder what we'd hear from the Iraqi people -- would they echo the
sentiments of their leader?  Would they question the value of the
war?  Or would they, as Jordan has been reporting to their people,
talk about the war between Israel and Iraq, noting how the US has
come to "defend the Jewish State yet again"?

Since we're in a state of war, the information disseminated by our
government (and the governments of the rest of the allied forces)
is intended not only to keep us, the American (Allied) populace
informed, but to convey information to the Iraqi government too.
By the same token, when Hussein addresses his people via a national
radio broadcast, he knows that we'll hear it in this country too.
Again, citing the Wall Street Journal, they were surprised to find
that about 85% of the people surveyed in the US believe that the
Pentagon and White House are doing a fine job of keeping us informed
and balancing the secrets of wartime with the need for public
dissemination of information.  By contrast, journalists at the
briefings are clearly more and more disgruntled with the obstacles
they perceive in "getting the real story".

Frankly, as a journalist myself, I'm a bit embarrassed at my colleagues
who insist that the right to know ALL that's going on is tantamount and
more important than any sort of security and confidentiality.  Freedom
of the press, to me, means that the press is free to publish what they
choose, not that they have the inherent right to all information, 
regardless of validity or external environmental factors and concerns.
After all, they don't publish accusations of child molesting since 
the cases where people have had their reputations irrevocably besmirched
then afterwards proven innocent...

Whether or not we should be in the Gulf, and whether or not we should
have launched the Desert Storm offensive is not particularly relevant
to this group, frankly, so I shall refrain from any comments, and 
hope that others responding to this most interesting topic do the 
same.  Remember, there *are* other forums for those that are interested
in discussing these topics.

Dave Taylor