Xref: utzoo news.misc:1543 news.admin:2674 comp.misc:2626
Path: utzoo!utgpu!tmsoft!spectrix!clewis
From: clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis (It's loose again!))
Newsgroups: news.misc,news.admin,comp.misc
Subject: Re: News slanted by censorship?
Message-ID: <664@spectrix.UUCP>
Date: 17 Jun 88 20:15:10 GMT
References: <386@blic.BLI.COM> <113@dcs.UUCP> <3939@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> <224@optilink.UUCP> <118@dcs.UUCP>
Reply-To: clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis (It's loose again!))
Organization: Spectrix Microsystems Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 62

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)