Newsgroups: misc.headlines
Subject: RE: India and Afghanistan
From: galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross)
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 13:53:38 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:

> In article <D2qBwB1w165w@netlink.cts.com>, galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross)
> > f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
> > 
> >> In article <NT05VB1w165w@netlink.cts.com>, galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gro
> >> > f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
> >> 
> >> [deleted]
> >> 
> > That stories are obtained differently in Kashmir, I have no doubt. That 
> > trying to obtain stories at *all* in Kashmir is difficult at best, I have 
> > no doubt.
> > 
> > what I was responding to was the suggestion that the U.S. press was 
> > somewhat being manipulated to disregard events in Kashmir. That's what 
> > goes through my mind when someone refers to a "controlled" press. the 
> > kind of restrictions you cite are not uncommon around the world when 
> > someone wants to hide something. It's a major test of ingenuity and nerve 
> > to break through those barriers, get to the truth and bring it out.
> > G.
> > 
> > --
> > Gregory Alan Gross      Welcome to life, where no good deed goes unpunished
> 
> 
> I certainly don't have any quarrel with your latter statement.  But I
> consider the standard media fare in the US to be very much controlled.
> Since this matter has been discussed at length from time to time on
> this and related newsgroups, I won't rehash the matter except to make
> a few observations.  Reports of events in Kashmir are very sparse indeed
> even though Kashmir is a very eventful place right now.  It is an 
> extreme hot spot for igniting real trouble between Moslem and Hindu
> with repercussions throughout the Middle East and elsewhere.  Control
> is suggested by absence of any interest, much less any news.  It is
> the responsibility of our press to keep us informed and we are kept
> ignorant except for the occasional morsels we can scrounge for ourselves.
> It has been suggested that the subtle control we are subjected to is
> a function of a news cartel with ownership tightly held in a few hands
> which cooperates with government/intelligence agencies while considering
> the interest of the financiers who can call the notes if they don't
> get the news their way compounded by the need to hustle advertising
> dollars with resultant news slants to benefit major clients.  Meanwhile
> investigative reporting takes a backseat to prepackaged handouts from
> government and corporations.  After all, who wants to be another Danny
> Casalaro.  When a President can be assassinated in broad daylight
> and major media join in the coverup for 30 years, there is something
> seriously wrong with our press. Similar statements can be made with
> respect to Martin Luther King, Robert F. Kennedy and the attempt
> on George Wallace.  We can differ about the degree of control and
> the relative importance of various causes.  But whether control is
> financial or political in origin, it is still control.  This is not
> to say that we don't have many dedicated people in the media working
> overtime to give us the very best.  But they have one heck of an
> obstacle course to run to do it.
> 
> -Joe Gaut


That the marketplace imposes its own "controls" is a reality of every 
business, which this is, as much as any other.  News judgment is about as 
selective a process as there is. (I ought to know, having quarreled with 
that of my own company's management often enough...)

That having been said, the bottom line remains the same. The people who 
make news decisions on a daily basis have to decide which stories they 
think will interest their readers/viewers and how much. Also, very few 
local news organizations have the wherewithall to send their own people 
everywhere, and so fall into a heavy reliance (perhaps too much so on 
wire services).

And if "the wires" aren't carrying stories on a given matter overseas, it 
might as well not exist in the mids of a lot of news organizations.

And then there's the original question of access. You can't cover what 
you can't get access to. The Persian Gulf war is a prime example of that.

Personally, I scan the wires almost daily for stories out of Kashmir, 
Punjab, Sri Lanka, Irian Jaya, Liberia, Mozambique, Colombia, Peru, 
Guatemala, and a few other places where conflicts rage and innocents are 
dying. But if I try to talk to my neighbors about these stories, even if 
I hand them copies of stories about them, what I get mostly are shrugs 
and those "that's-interesting-but-who-gives-a-damn?" smiles.

When the reading public as a whole starts demanding more from its news 
outlets, it'll get more. But probably not before then.
G.

--
Gregory Alan Gross      Welcome to life, where no good deed goes unpunished.
San Diego Union-Tribune         (619) 293-1270 (voice)
P.O. Box 191                    (619) 293-1896 (fax)
San Diego, CA 92112-4106        galan@netlink.cts.com (Internet)