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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (13797)	10/25/2003 1:46:06 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793690

Gosh, two profound thoughts in one post... Here's something about bias in the media and more on Fox newsies. How to Change the News on Iraq By E. J. Dionne Jr. Saturday, October 25, 2003; Page A23 So is the Fox News Channel, television's most pro-Bush network, offering an especially negative view of what's happening in Iraq? You might think so from a fascinating poll released this week by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The pollsters took on a controversy the Bush administration started by asking respondents whether "news reports are making the situation in Iraq seem worse than it really is, better than it really is -- or are reports showing the situation about the way it really is?" Overall, 38 percent of Americans thought the news was making the Iraqi situation seem worse than reality, 14 percent thought news portrayals were making things seem better, and 36 percent thought the reports were about right. But check this out: 55 percent of those who said the Fox News Channel was their main source of news said the newsies were making things seem worse, compared with only 32 percent of CNN viewers. Are those folks at Fox News a collection of nattering nabobs of negativism? Of course not. People's views of whether Bush is right or wrong about the news have little do what with what they are seeing or reading and a lot to do with their political preconceptions. The audience for Fox News, as the poll found, is significantly more Republican than the rest of the nation. And sure enough, Fox viewers' attitudes closely match those of Republicans, 55 percent of whom also see the media as portraying the reality in Iraq too negatively. On the other hand, CNN viewers -- and, as it happens, newspaper readers -- held views on reporting from Iraq similar to those of Americans as a whole. That Bush's campaign against the media is taking hold with Republicans is not surprising. And the right has proved through 30 years of media-bashing that it can make editors and producers look over their right shoulders and second-guess themselves. But there is another problem: You can always argue that a very bad situation is better than it looks. It always is. Human beings, even in the worst of times, try to go about their business and are quite heroic in their efforts to make life as normal as possible. I learned this back in February 1984. I was a reporter on my way to Beirut during a particularly violent phase of the Lebanese civil war. I was stranded on Cyprus because the Beirut airport was being shelled and squalls on the Mediterranean had temporarily shut down sea travel. Things were bad enough in Beirut that the U.S. government had wisely evacuated most of our diplomats to Cyprus. Trying to do something useful, I filed a story reporting their terrifying tales of the chaos they had left behind. When I finished writing, I was kind of scared myself, even though I had been to Lebanon before. So I called Tom Friedman, then the Beirut bureau chief for the New York Times. He reassured me with words I'll never forget: "Oh, E.J., you know it's never as bad here as it seems to be from the outside." And of course, he was right. We both survived. Most people did. Everyone tried to live as normally as possible. While in Beirut, I regularly visited a lovely restaurant I found to be a refuge amid the bedlam, even though getting there meant braving a sniper point. The taxi driver would gun through a broad street that was the danger zone, hoping not to hear the crack of an automatic rifle. But what was the overall "news" of this situation: the story of the intrepid entrepreneur who managed to keep his restaurant open -- and the countless others like him who behaved with the same energy and determination? Or that Beirut was a brutalized city where shells landed regularly, snipers plied their trade and car bombs would go off unexpectedly? Yes, I tried to write about Beirut's brave souls, but here's a hint about what the real news was: The U.S. government was not overreacting when it sent those diplomats out to safety. So I am sure that some good things are happening in Iraq and that there are Americans there doing difficult jobs well. But right now, the news is not of what's normal. When U.S. soldiers get killed and wounded, when explosions rip through buildings, when Iraqi leaders and civilians are dying, that, alas, is the news. This news may contradict the optimistic predictions made by the administration, so I don't blame Bush or his supporters for not liking what they are seeing or reading. But changing the news won't change the situation. Improving the situation will change the news. postchat@aol.com © 2003 The Washington Post Company