From: Jef Allbright (jef@jefallbright.net)
Date: Wed Dec 04 2002 - 10:06:37 MST
Hmmm. It seems that Lee is adopting an extreme position here to encourage
debate rather than to refine understanding. Once again, it feels like
manipulation rather than sincere discussion, but I'm beginning to think it's
simply how Lee likes to play the game.
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Jef writes
>
>> Having lived and travel in Japan and Asia for a few years, I found
>> it very interesting to read the international newspapers and see a
>> completely different set of biases on American news events.
>> Traveling from country to country, each newspaper was visibly biased
>> in its own way, and it was almost shocking to be able to compare and
>> see from that perspective how the American news sources deliver
>> their product in a way that looks very much like propaganda to an
>> outsider.
>
> This is quite amazing.
Lee, are you honestly amazed, or could this be sarcasm?
(By the way, this candid confession
> is not intended to provoke rants from anyone on how parochial
> I am, and on how narrow and stupid is my understanding of
> everything.)
Your next sentence certainly seems to indicate sarcasm, but maybe it's
intended humorously.
You really mean that every newspaper appeared
> to be biased in its own way? You mean *none* of them appeared
> to present news in a fashion that did not allow you to draw
> conclusions as to the ideological sympathies of the writer?
Lee, I certainly didn't read EVERY paper available, nor did I mean to imply
that I did. I was commenting on my general observations over a few years
living and traveling in Asia. My posting was to make the point that it is
useful and enlightening to be able to see the US from outside, something
many Americans never experience.
> While one only sometimes finds it in the U.S., one can find
> it. In fact, I think that in at least one story on the front
> page of a major American newspaper, you cannot tell the
> political persuasion of the writer, nor whether he or she
> is at all pro- or anti-American.
I think virtually all of us would agree that there exists some very high
quality, minimally biased reporting in American media. Once again, it
appears you are re-casting my posting to appear extreme. My point was that
the mainstream American media generally present issues in a way that is
palatable to American popular tastes, and it can be very enlightening to
view these same issues from a perspective outside the US.
>
>> This comes across especially strongly when you see what the US
>> mainstream papers do *not* print because it would be contrary to, or
>> question, "American values" and diminish the enjoyable entertainment
>> value of the paper to their US audience.
>
> An example or two, so that I can get the idea?
I think you do get the idea, and this is your way of fishing for more
targets to play with in a subsequent post. It was a general statement about
mainstream media. We all know that one can find alternate viewpoints in
print, radio and on the Internet. An example would be looking at recent
mainstream newspaper articles in the US, and observing the multifront
buildup of support for war in Iraq, demonizing of Saddam, and so on, with
less than equal representation of contrasting viewpoints and analysis from
other countries. It's natural to have this kind of popular bias in the
mainstream American media. My point was that if you observe from other
countries outside the US, you will see strongly contrasting perspectives,
and that the American popular media can be perceived as self-serving
propaganda to an extent many Americans may be shocked to see.
>
>> Every day I would read serious, well-reasoned criticism of
>> US policies in the overseas papers while in the US papers even
>> what passes for criticism comes across as the "party line"
>> when viewed from outside.
>
> Totally amazing.
Is this sarcasm again, or humor, or Corbin-esque debating style?
So you are saying that all the right-wing
> rags, all the left-wing socialist (actually communist, let's
> face it) rags, and everything from Lyndon LaRouche, Noam
> Chomsky, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill Press all have a certain
> definable something in common? You're right: it's invisible
> to me. What in heck is it? Can you say?
You're arguing from extremes again here. I think I was pretty clear that I
was talking about mainstream media. I think all of us know that alternate
points of view are readily available.
>
>> The other comparison that can be made is the strong sense that many
>> other countries clearly consider themselves part of an international
>> community, whereas US reporting gives the impression that American
>> events are central and international events are peripheral.
>
> Observe how well this fits a point made by Anders in another
> thread ("Culture", Mon 11/25/2002 7:58 AM):
>
> If one looks at surveys of cultural dimensions, the US
> is clearly more individualistic than European countries,
> and there are more complex differences in uncertainty
> avoidance and traditionalism.
>
> To take a typical example, American CVs are regarded by
> Europeans as boastful, padded and giving an exaggerated
> image of the person. While European CVs in the US are
> regarded as too humble, giving the impression of mediocrity.
> Similarly at scientific conferences, American researchers
> usually strongly delineate their conclusions with few
> qualifiers, expecting the audience to provide the
> balancing criticism, while ***European (especially
> Scandinavian) researchers mention all issues and problems,
> expecting the audience to give constructive criticism on how
> to reach stronger conclusions.***
>
> (Italics added.) Indeed it appears that "community
> spirit" is more widespread outside the U.S., and in
> more ways than one!
Interesting how you twisted the intended meaning of that paragraph.
Actually, my observations are that Americans in general have a relatively
high level of community spirit, probably due to pioneer heritage, new world
settling dynamics, and various other factors. But that wasn't my point at
all.
I think it was clear from my post that I was saying that many countries
outside the US see themselves as a community of countries, while they see
the US as less a member of the community of nations, and more inclined to
use its might to have its own way.
>
>> Every country will naturally emphasize local issues,
>> but America is big enough, strong enough, and involved
>> enough in world issues that the disparity is glaring.
>
> Don't forget the history: American cultural institutions
> developed in relative isolation, and that the American
> mind-set is less cosmopolitan isn't too much of a surprise.
>
>> I'm happy to be an American, and proud of my country's
>> strengths, but international awareness is one area in
>> general where we do need improvement.
>
> Why are you proud? Did you personally contribute to
> any of America's strengths, or feel like you did?
Thank you. I think this is the one valid point you have made with regard to
my post. I thought long and hard before making the statement that I am
proud to be an American. I finally included it, with some misgivings,
intending to improve the balance of my message and to divert some
unanticipated unproductive attacks on grounds of patriotism.
I've thought a lot about what it means to say that one is proud of
something, and in a deep logical sense I can't really justify it. However I
truly do feel proud of some of America's strengths, in the exact same sense
that I feel proud of my children. However, your point is taken, it's not
the same as saying I'm proud of something I personally accomplished.
By the way, I just realized I feel the same sense of pride with regard to
some Japanese strengths (just one example). It's the same feeling, but I
can't use the word "proud" in that case because I certainly have no claim to
being Japanese. I need another word that means identifying with
accomplishments and values of others from the perspective that we're all in
this together. [End half-baked idea. I need to get to work.]
>
> But to re-iterate the most important question in another
> way: how can it be that in a nation of 290 million
> people, with enormous liberties of the press, that any
> particular slant taken by some (say Japanese) foreign
> newspaper is not mirrored by some point on the political
> spectrum within the U.S. itself?
Gee, did I say THAT? <g>
>
> Thanks,
> Lee
No, thank YOU. <g>
- Jef
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:34 MST