Newsgroup: it.comp.macintosh
Titolo: [OT] Le opinioni di un americano sulla guerra di Bush


Dall'Herald Tribune, traggo alcune chicche tradotte alla carlona:
"Immagino che, volente o nolente, l'America stia entrando in questa
guerra perchè è la sola via d'uscita che Bush e la sua gente riescono a
vedere.
Tuttavia, in questo modo gli Stati Uniti stanno diventando una sorta di
mega-repubblica delle banane, in cui l'esercito aumenta continuamente la
propria influenza sulla vita quotidiana della popolazione civile.
Alla fine, questo porterà a rivoluzionare l'intero sistema. Alla fine la
democrazia, nobile e delicata com'è, potrebbe soccombere.
La mia lunga esperienza con la natura umana (ho 80 anni) mi suggerisce
che lo stato naturale sia il fascismo, non la democrazia.
Piuttosto, la democrazia è una condizione particolare, da difendere in
continuazione. 
Cosa che sarà sempre più difficile a causa della combinazione tra
corporazioni, l'esercito e lo sputtanamento della bandiera negli
spettacoli sportivi di massa ha già creato un clima pre-fascista."
-- 
La dedica è a quel neo-fascista inconscio di Mark Greene.

e della BBC
--
US media's war challenge 
By Louisa Lim 
BBC analyst 
There have been widespread complaints that the US media is, at worst,
openly partisan in favour of President Bush and, at best, cowed into
withholding criticism of his administration - and policy towards Iraq. 
So how true is this? 
One of the nation's most respected television anchormen, Dan Rather,
said that the patriotic fervour that swept the country after 11
September is preventing the media asking difficult questions. 
In the United States there is already a war going on - the battle for
public opinion. 
It is being waged through the pages of the print media and over the
airwaves. 
But despite the saturation coverage of the Iraq crisis, a large number
of Americans feel their voices are not  being heard. 
They showed their numbers in a huge anti-war protest a week ago on the
streets of New York. 
Among them was Danny Schechter, who runs a website called
mediachannel.org
, and monitors the mainstream media. 
Mr Schechter believes that since 11 September, many journalists have
been nervous about appearing unpatriotic by being too critical of the
government. 
In many cases, objectivity - rather than truth - has been one of the
casualties of a war that has not yet begun 
"You have a sort of news slant in favour of the administration and the
way the administration defines what news is," he says. 
"It's not so much that journalists don't want to cover the other side.
But the way that they see the other side is it's the Bush administration
versus Saddam Hussein. Those are the two sides." 
"In fact, there are many other sides; there is all of Europe, and there
is all of the American people who are dissatisfied with all this." 
But what the White House is doing to manage the news is not called
censorship, Mr Schechter says.  It's called "spin". 
"It's called trying to get your story out first and define the news
agenda.  So you have coverage of events like Afghanistan for example,
with a tremendous amount of hoopla - but no assessment of what was
really accomplished there and what wasn't accomplished. 
"This is true in all these stories; the news media moves in, and it
moves on." 
Complete control 
The White House briefing is a ritualistic and almost daily opportunity
for journalists to get the presidential view. 
But how easy is to get the real, inside story from the administration? 
Dana Milbank, who covers the White House for the Washington Post
newspaper, says the White House media managers have been almost 100%
effective in controlling leaks from the administration. 
"Things are held very close to the vest in the sense that maybe four or
five or six people on any given subject actually know what's going on in
the White House," he says. 
"You have this large complex with hundreds and hundreds of people, but
the only ones who know enough to leak, you can generally count on the
fingers of one hand.  And they are perfectly loyal." 
By and large most of the White House press corps and most of the
American media have gone along with the White House plan. 
So journalists trusted to see things the way the White House does get
the story first. 
The story is defined in those terms in the mind of the public before
organisations which see events differently have a chance to modify it. 
And by that time the story may have moved on. 
'Big media' attacked 
The Fox News Channel is famous for its hawkish tone. 
Cal Thomas hosts a show on the channel, and his opinion pieces appear in
550 newspapers. 
It is good for the press to be sceptical about their political
leadership, but when scepticism becomes cynicism, I think that's bad for
the media 
Cal Thomas, Fox News 
He's used his columns to attack what he calls "big media" for being too
negative about the Bush administration. 
"When I speak of the big media I'm talking of those which attract the
most viewers - the broadcast networks, of which we have three in the
United States - ABC, NBC, and CBS - which most people watch and get
their news from. 
"They all seem to come from a similar perspective.  But ABC's anchor
Peter Jennings has been especially critical and sceptical of everything
the administration says." 
The press should act as a watchdog on the executive, Cal Thomas says. 
But a watchdog should not bite without provocation. 
"It is good for the press to be sceptical about their political
leadership, but when scepticism becomes cynicism, I think that's bad for
the media and its bad for the government.  I believe it over steps its
role at that point." 
Thirst for news 
Indeed, there seems to be an increasing lack of trust in the media from
all sides of the political spectrum - and among the population as a
whole. 
Large sections of the media seem to see their role as preparing the US
for war 
But in fact ratings for news programmes are improving, according to
media analyst Jack Myers, albeit for some more than others: 
"During the build up to war the more conservative commentators, such as
those on the Fox News Channel, do extremely well.  There is a little
more of a rabid fever to get opinion and analysis," he says 
As the first bombs fall, then viewers go more for the hard news and they
tend to move back towards CNN, towards the more traditional news
channels, the more trusted news sources for information as opposed to
opinion." 
Large sections of the media seem to see their role as preparing the US
for war. 
Much less time is spent questioning the reasons and examining the
consequences of any military action. 
And in many cases objectivity - rather than truth - has been one of the
casualties of a war that has not yet begun. 
This feature is based on a BBC World Service Analysis programme
originally broadcast on 20 February 2002. 
Story from BBC NEWS: 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/2796769.stm
 
Published: 2003/02/26 12:31:21 
© BBC MMIII 
remove "DONTSPAMME." to reply

 spettacoli sportivi di massa ha già creato un clima pre-fascista."
Sottoscrivo tutto, e ovviamente, la cosa non mi piace per niente
ciao