Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Grenada
Message-ID: <468@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 6-Nov-83 13:57:14 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.468
Posted: Sun Nov  6 13:57:14 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 7-Nov-83 16:21:23 EST
References: <99@astrovax.UUCP>
Organization: D.C.I.E.M, Toronto, Canada
Lines: 56

One of the most disturbing aspects of the Grenada action is the
disparity in perception between the people in the USA and the people
in other friendly countries. In the USA, polls seem to show that the
majority of the people support the invasion. In no other country is
this true.

The disparity is disturbing because it suggests that one or more of
several things is happening:
	(1) News manipulation in the USA or in ALL other "free" countries.
	(2) A general feeling that the USA is exhibiting colonialist
  behaviour, coupled with a feeling in the US that this is as it should
  be, but elsewhere with a feeling that "we might be next". (I have seen
  this concern expressed in several letters to the editor in Toronto papers).
	(3) A general feeling that the US and USSR have the attitude
  that the world is divided into "our bits" and "their bits", with no
  room for friends and partners. Those that might want to be friends to
  the US don't necessarily want to be one of the "US bits".
        (4) A worry about the increasing use of naked agression by both
  US and USSR, a worry that is downplayed by the US media in the name
  of patriotism (if they are nasty, so must we be, but we are only
  because they are; we are really very nice guys). From outside, the
  difference is harder to see, since our patriotism is to our own
  countries and to the idea of freedom of choice.

When I first heard of the Grenada invasion, I thought that for almost
the first time, Reagan had done something right. I envisaged a UN police
action against a bloody coup. But then some of the "reasons"
started to come out, all of them outrageous. Worse, the people that
opposed the invasion (in the US) had all the wrong reasons for opposing
it (it would have been OK to invade if danger to US citizens had been
proven, for example).

I suspect that the difference between the US and non-US perceptions of
the event come mainly from a persistent difference in the media, which
have a positive feedback relationship with the consumers of information.
A newspaper that tells its readers what they want to hear will make
more sales than one that tells the truth. The truthful paper will be
called a liar by people who wish to believe differently. What do you
think would be the fate of a newspaper that consistently pointed out
wrongdoing in international affairs, without fear or favour to any country?
I suspect they would be known as "pinko, Jew-hating, anti-Arab, etc. etc."
and would sell very few papers. If the paper were published in USSR,
it would be quickly suppressed and the editors sent to psychiatric
institutions or labour camps. Why should this be? Everyone believes
that their own country is, at bottom, best; but surely it is unreasonable
to expect that it should be perfect? Nevertheless, there seems to
be something in human nature that hates to admit imperfection.
In the US, I perceive a tendency toward extremism, such that the
behaviour of the Government is either marvellous or intolerable
(if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out).

Sorry for the length of this, but I find the discrepancy between the
US and the rest of the free world one of the more disturbing trends
of these perilous times.

Martin Taylor