> I certainly see your points, Tim, but to think that other countries might
> not be watching our reaction is simply wrong.
I'm not suggesting their not watching. I'm suggesting it's naïve to think
they're making policy (like whether or not to support terrorist states)
based on our slanted media coverage.
> Whether they take us seriously is less the question than whether our rhetoric
> defines who we are as a country.
Perhaps...but that's a different question, I think.
> Friends and acquaintances from other countries have let me know
> that they do evaluate us by the media we send out, from Baywatch to CNN.
While this is, no doubt, true, what you suggested is that *governments* are
making policy based on our coverage of this event. I think decisions on whom
to support politically and militarily were made long ago and that the events
of yesterday are so overwhelming on their own, that any ineptness on the
part of our media is merely icing on the cake.
> but we must remember the power language has a weild it judiciously.
Of course...it is, at least in part, the power of language (and the culture
it helps define) in certain parts of the middle east that can mold suicide
bombers.
The fact is that the events yesterday are both political and religious
statements and I don't think anyone on this list would deny that fact. The
question is whether or not ALL Arabs or ALL Muslims are being tarred by the
same brush by our media. I don't think that's happened in our news coverage
so far (it remains to be seen if Baywatch treats the issue in a fair and
even handed manner...). I don't think that pointing out the political and
religious fanaticism on the part of the terrorists is out of bounds.
> But if we're wrong, as we were in OK City, then we've intensified animosity on
> the part of not just fringe Muslim groups, but the moderates as well, by our
> thinly disguised accusations.
I don't think any of the speculation on responsibility that I've seen to
date has been reckless. There's already evidence that it was Arabs linked to
Bin Laden. I don't see it as thinly disguised anything.
> Face it--we want it to be Bin Laden so that we know who the
> enemy is. But he isn't the only one who sees us as the enemy.
True...but we're well aware of enemies other than Bin Laden. But he's on the
short, short list of those who could actually plan, coordinate, and execute
this kind of operation. The McVeighs of the world could not have pulled this
off. Therefore, we're looking for individuals and organizations that have
extensive covert support from governments hostile to the US.
> gathering facts and reporting on
> them rather than packaging sensationalized footage in order to gain views.
It seems to me that this is what's been happening. As for the footage, well,
you can't cover this at all without it being sensational. That was the whole
point of the attack. It was a sensational attack. It was meant to be a
horrific act, and if you cover it at all it's going to inflame passions.
This is not to say that were won't be racist statements or actions taken by
members of the larger populace based on what has happened. But I haven't
(yet) seen anything in the media that strikes me as irresponsible (though I
suspect that Howard Stern's coverage may be an exception).
Believe me, I'm not a fan of our media. I think that the fact that we have
far too few real journalists and way too many celebrities and celebrity
wannabees has damaged our national reputation and collective literacy. I
think that as our nation becomes less and less well educated the worse this
is going to get. I just don't think, however, that the coverage of this most
horrific event is cause for hand wringing on that particular issue.
The bottom line is that, human nature being what it is, it doesn't take
slanted media coverage to make elements of our country overreact and take
out their anger on anyone who *looks* like an Arab. I share your revulsion
at that kind of racism, but I just don't think we can blame it on Peter
Jennings at the moment.
Regards,
TC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 22 2002 - 20:15:01 EDT