From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Dec 04 2002 - 08:43:46 MST
Anders writes
> There are likely reflections of any outside view somewhere
> within the US. But is it published in something widely read?
This is hilarious (no put-down intended). *The* principle
difference between libertarians and others is their notion
of personal responsibility. Even in the U.S. (of course)
it's not held to be the consumers' fault for believing
misleading advertising, but rather the government's for not
forcing advertisers to give "correct" impressions of
scientific facts.
It didn't occur to me until Anders' paragraph above that
whether or not something is widely read is anyone's fault
except the audience's. In other words, I take it for
granted, for example, that the mainstream press in the
U.S. has great liberal bias, and so I seek serious
explanations elsewhere. Yes, I admit that when I'm lazy
this doesn't work well.
> > Observe how well this fits a point made by Anders in another
> > thread ("Culture", Mon 11/25/2002 7:58 AM):
> ...
> > 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!
>
> I would not make such a strong statement. While many non-US
> cultures are far more collectivist and emphasize altruism to
> a high degree, "community spirit" is a fairly noticeable US
> culture trait.
Yes.
> Maybe it is something which is enshrined rather more than
> practiced, but I get the impression that it is still more
> prevalent than in many other places.
Yes, I'll grant that "community spirit" is an inaccurate
characterization of what we are after here.
> One reason might be the short historic distance to the
> frontier culture,
Yes, which does explain so many European/American differences.
> The US has a far more diverse mainstream than many other countries, due to
> its size and individualist emphasis, but it is not arbitrary. Certain
> views are too weird, too far out, too controversial or simply "do not
> fit", and are hence less reported.
Yes, and I have never been able to imagine how it could
be any different. People will freely choose what they
want to read. True, it's unfortunate when only one
point of view *tends* to dominate a medium, such as talk
radio or major newspapers.
> Since journalists and editors get their impressions of
> the world through the media too, they will tend judge
> new things by comparing them to the known, setting up
> a filtering feedback effect. A kind of spontaneous bias.
Thanks for the explanation. I was about to ask why! ;-)
So what have I learned? On one possible reading of Jef
Albright's original paragraph
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.
there is a monolithic interpretation of events in mainstream
publications within *any* country; it just didn't become so
glaring until he traveled.
But then his next paragraph
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.
becomes more obscure, because this paragraph tends to imply that
it's something peculiar to the U.S. So far in my attempt to get
all this straight, all I see peculiar about the U.S. is its
relative emphasis on individuality, which is not the same thing.
Perhaps the key is in his phrase "entertainment value". Maybe
what is perceived is that there is a more strident ideological
"serious" tone to foreign newspapers. But gee, that would mean
that U.S. papers are *less* ideological, and so closer to being
objective! Phew! This is all still quite obscure to me.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:34 MST