En Llamas
Every day we read newspapers and magazines. Every day we watch television news broadcasts and hear short news briefs on the radio. Every day we are influenced by the media.
The U.S. press has almost always delivered the facts, or at least what it perceives to be the facts, to the people. I do not dispute this.
But are we, the general public of the United States, seeing all sides of issues? Are we, the consumers of American journalism, always told about both sides of the dispute? Or does one side continually get the edge over another, getting more press coverage and a more positive attitude from the media?
The situation with the United States and Iraq is a prime example of American media favoring one side of an issue. The public always hears reports about how Iraq is "stubborn" and how the U.S. is doing its best to "resolve" the situation. The word "stubborn" connotes a negative attitude of obstinacy, while "resolve" means to bring about a positive, successful conclusion to a situation.
Immediately, we perceive the Iraqis to be our enemies, while we, the United States, are the righteous, the defenders of freedom, who have an obligation to expel the aggressors from innocent Kuwait, because we are a dominant force in the world. However, there are also people who believe that Saddam Hussein is on a crusade to unite all of the Arab countries , just as Bismarck did in Germany in the late 1800s. Rather than a sort of Hitler, some compare Hussein to Bismarck, who, although using ruthless tactics, united Germany and is today considered hero.
What Hussein stands to gain by the acquisition of Kuwait does not go unnoticed, but the point here is that perhaps much of what we see through the mediums of television and newspaper is colored. Whether or not the publishers of newspapers and the production managers of news stations believe that Hussein is on an evil mission, shouldn't those absorbing the news make that decision for themselves? Shouldn't they see a clip
The U.S. press has almost always delivered the facts, or at least what it perceives to be the facts, to the people. I do not dispute this.
But are we, the general public of the United States, seeing all sides of issues? Are we, the consumers of American journalism, always told about both sides of the dispute? Or does one side continually get the edge over another, getting more press coverage and a more positive attitude from the media?
The situation with the United States and Iraq is a prime example of American media favoring one side of an issue. The public always hears reports about how Iraq is "stubborn" and how the U.S. is doing its best to "resolve" the situation. The word "stubborn" connotes a negative attitude of obstinacy, while "resolve" means to bring about a positive, successful conclusion to a situation.
Immediately, we perceive the Iraqis to be our enemies, while we, the United States, are the righteous, the defenders of freedom, who have an obligation to expel the aggressors from innocent Kuwait, because we are a dominant force in the world. However, there are also people who believe that Saddam Hussein is on a crusade to unite all of the Arab countries , just as Bismarck did in Germany in the late 1800s. Rather than a sort of Hitler, some compare Hussein to Bismarck, who, although using ruthless tactics, united Germany and is today considered hero.
What Hussein stands to gain by the acquisition of Kuwait does not go unnoticed, but the point here is that perhaps much of what we see through the mediums of television and newspaper is colored. Whether or not the publishers of newspapers and the production managers of news stations believe that Hussein is on an evil mission, shouldn't those absorbing the news make that decision for themselves? Shouldn't they see a clip