From: peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: ACTION ALERT!! An Arab village is to be wiped out
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 12:37:26 PST
Distribution: world

        >Brad writes:
        >Here is my point.  If you say it is baloney to think that it 
        >matters whether a company is owned by Japanese or Americans, 
        >why do you think it matters if a company is owned by Arabs? 
        
I don't.  Only when *governments* get involved.  There's a big dif-        
ference between private ownership and government ownership.  It's
like comparing an individual terrorist with state-sponsored terrorism
like they have in Iran (Salman Rushdie).

        >Why don't you equate Japanese ownership of companies in the U.S. 
        >with ownership by the Japanese government? 
        
Because there are PRIVATE Japanese investors that use their own money        
and influence to buy things, NOT because the Japanese investors are
agents of the Japanese government.
        
        >Correct my if I am wrong but I was not aware that UPI was
        >purchased by the Saudi government or that UPI's offices were 
        >all carted off and set up in Saudi Arabia. 
        
You may consider yourself corrected.  The UPI was purchased by the
brother of Prince Bandar, with money received from the Saudi govt.
Like I said, when the UPI prints just ONE story critical of anything
to do with the Saudi government, I'll be convinced they're legit.
 
        >Just for the record, I don't support the notion that Israel 
        >or any other country has a "right" to exist. 
        
Except "Palestine".

        >I do, however, support the right of Israelis to exist and live 
        >in peace just as I support that same right for the native 
        >Palestinians, etc... 
        
Notice how you use the adjective "native" in front of the Palestinians,        
but not the Israelis.  Is there a reason for this?  The Israelis have
been trying to make peace for 44 years.  They haven't started any of
the wars, and you damn well know it.  Perhaps I'm mistaken here, but
I'm still under the impression that no Arab government sans Egypt has
recognized Israel's right to exist as a sovereign state.

        >Also for the record, I DO NOT support Mr. Schmidling's thesis 
        >any more than I support yours, Phil. 
        
I'm insulted at having my name mentioned in the same sentence as mine.        
Mr. Schmidling doesn't even bother to present any facts most of the
time.  He's just full of (un)glittering generalities.

        >I believe that all media is inherently biased. Some of that bias 
        >does indeed come from the interests and experience of the people 
        >who work for and own the media. 
        
Naturally.  People ARE only human, you know.  But when the government        
censors the free press, that's another issue entirely.  Every U.S.
paper has its bias(es), but the government doesn't have the RIGHT to
stop any of them from printing whatever the hell they wish.  This is
probably not true with the UPI today, but we can't know for sure, since
the Saudis DON'T HAVE a free press in their country.  When UPI prints 
the ONE article critical of the Saudi regime, I'll be convinced that
they're a legitimate news organization.

        >That does not mean that the media should be declared invalid 
        
Why would a journalism major such as myself ever declare such?  This        
doesn't change the fact that the National Enquirer is less reliable
as a news source than the New York Times.

        >only that we should try to be aware of examples of bias. 
        
The first rule of news reporting is to report a BALANCED view of a        
news story.  Commentary should be left on the Op-Ed page.

        >We should try to glean the news from the garbage. 
        
This is like saying we should try to glean dinner from the garbage.        
You shouldn't go to a "garbage" source for your news.

        >It is also a good idea to get news from a wide variety of 
        >sources. 
        
This is the first time I remember agreeing with you 100% on.  I get my        
news from the San Jose Mercury News, CNN, the BBC, and the 3 networks.

        >Probably more problematic in the U.S. media, in my  opinion, is 
        >the emphasis on profit. Afterall, the media are businesses just 
        >like any other. 
        
I disagree that this is a problem.  If a newspaper has nobody that buys        
it, why should it survive?  Should the taxpayers guarantee that every
single person has access to a printing press?  This would bankrupt
our economy faster than Castro's Cuba.
        
        >The problem is that the media try to present the news that they 
        >think the public are interested in. 
        
They COULD hire Les Nessman to do his Ground Hog Reports, but I don't         
think it would create much interest.  :)

        >That is the primary cause of the "bias" in the media. The U.S. 
        >government knows this full well; Reagan was a master at manipu-
        >lating our "free press". 
        
True, but he didn't FORCE the "free press" to write anything.  They did        
it under their own free will.  Don't talk bad about the father of our
country!  :)
        
        >All the government need do is suggest that something is news and 
        >the media will lap it up. 
                  [^^^^]        
No kidding.  But in Saudi Arabia, all the government need do is "suggest"        
that something is news and the media MUST lap it up.  
                                     ^^^^        
        >Want to draw attention away from a government embarassment? ... 
        >have a news conference and draw the media's attention somewhere 
        >else.

A news conference is accompanied by an advance release detailing what
the reason for the news conference is about.  If it's not about anything
interesting to "the media", they won't bother to cover it.

A perfect example of this came earlier this year.  Bush held a news
conference, and none of the broadcast networks carried it, because
they determined that the sole purpose was for political purposes.