Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: willcousa who wrote (173844)	3/31/2003 7:32:00 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Hi Willcousa, if one media omits information, that doesn't mean the other one doesn't. (Your question incorporated an incorrect assumption.) The omission of information by both is a problem. It might be one reason why people are viewing foreign ezines - to read what is omitted here - to gain external information or international perspective - to gain more than just our domestic viewpoint. I read that 50% of one ezine had viewers from outside their country. I think it's great if we as a nation get even more informed on international. But it's human nature to present one data or perspective. Maybe even revenue-threatening to do otherwise. Look at how a quiet expression of a patriotic wish for peace turned even kind-hearted United Way into an unfriendly revenue buster. Consider DoD has an adv budget of $565.5M. It's human nature to be biased. A Newsweek article incorrectly assumes the term "pro-USA" only means "pro-war"; it can also mean "pro-peace." Bias can obscure facts. But the Internet enables the sharing of diverse data from many sources. The Internet is a powerful communication tool. As it proliferates, society may evolve to demand data from all sides, no different than what we do in high-tech when we evaluate pros/cons of a new product concept. But at a minimum, the Internet creates an environment where a diverse pool of information/perspective may be shared and not only by the wealthy, but also the not-so-wealthy, in order for a diverse picture. Generally speaking, we need to show both sides, not just ours. It will help advance our society, minimize conflicts, or allow us to be better equipped to deploy more effective approaches. The Internet will help close the knowledge gap on information and cultures. It will create highly informed societies better suited to avoid issues. I think as the Internet grows, the occurrence of wars might reduce because people will be more informed on how to approach problems rather than inciting more of the same. The Internet increases the expectations on international news coverage. Our media is no longer competing with themselves here, but with the world's media. Of course, there is the risk that ezines start polarizing - what if hypothetically Fox were to suddenly become the rant of biased jingoism? (this is hypothetical) Meanwhile, those ezines that have to strike a balance of international perspective, seem to carry the extra burden of competing with foreign ezines. I think CNN should create a "CNNi.com" that also includes Arabic international coverage for additional information from other perspectives, generally speaking. On a completely unrelated note, I read there were a lot of countries (both English & Arab.) who have gotten angry at al-Jeezera for displaying perspective/information the other side disapproved. I read they were kicked out of Jordon, etc. and won the Index On Censorship Inaugural Award from UK for integrity of reporting. I believe this may have been just prior to the photos of our soldiers (but am not sure). But either way, I concur with you, the degree of those photos shown wasn't appropriate. But ironically, it's okay to show photos of dead Iraqis, but not of our dead USA soldiers. Why the double standard? It was also okay when our media showed photos of our own soldiers being dragged by a truck in Kuwait many years ago. I think both sides (information & perspective) should be shown in a war so people are more informed, why be ignorant to what the other person thinks - wouldn't that possibly hurt us? Also, it's important we understand war is violent, but I absolutely agree with you, the degree shown should be in moderation. But it should be balanced. I think it's in our country's best interest if it is. Regards, Amy J

To: willcousa who wrote (173844)	3/31/2003 2:43:07 PM
From: Ali Chen	Respond to of 186894

"I don't understand why you think that our media are less reliable" Example: story.news.yahoo.com

To: willcousa who wrote (173844)	4/1/2003 8:36:14 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Hi Willcousa & Thread, RE: "NBC fires journalist Arnett" bayarea.com. "In the interview, the 68-year-old Arnett -- whose work with CNN during the first Gulf War had made him one of TV's most prominent war reporters -- said the American military was reappraising its battle plans because ``the first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance. ``Now,'' added Arnett, ``they are trying to write another war plan. Clearly, the American war plans misjudged the determination of Iraqi forces.'' "Initially, NBC supported the journalist but early today, the network announced his termination" Transcript: cnn.com. NBC and National Geography seem to be discouraging freedom of speech. If it's for security reasons, I understand, but it doesn't appear to be. Regards, Amy J