Xref: utzoo news.misc:1560 news.admin:2737 comp.misc:2646 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!bellcore!tness7!tness1!flatline!erict From: erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) Newsgroups: news.misc,news.admin,comp.misc Subject: Re: News slanted by censorship? Summary: Cockburn 's thoughts Message-ID: <921@flatline.UUCP> Date: 19 Jun 88 04:32:32 GMT References: <386@blic.BLI.COM> <113@dcs.UUCP> <3939@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> <118@dcs.UUCP> Organization: a flat near the Montrose, Houston, Tx. Lines: 114 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!/