Sorry, i should have added a related example to this. The web was and still is widely touted as a revolutionary device to get in touch directly with each other without the interference of intermediaries like government and news media.

But, here again, it can also be used to manipulate us. Chat rooms, like this one, are easily available to well organized advocacy groups and propagandists. I think that twitter and the web have opened a new dimension. But they have also opened a new danger. It's a mixed bag.

graeme

Er... technically speaking this is not a chat room... but good point.

We're not a chat room? Damn. Another failure of communications.

That is a very intersting suppostition Graeme.  I hadn't even thought of why we aren't getting twitter and cell phone video form honduras.

Makes one think

Well, there are people whose full time jobs are to figure out how to manipulate us all. And they aren't dumb.

graeme

on a related point, I had to spend a lot of time in my life reading newspapers from a century ago. This was for a population whose literacy was supposedly below ours. But I was often struck by the breadth and intelligence of coverage - and also by the level of public debate.

A century later, with far higher levels of education and with TV and radio and newspapers and pictures and the web and twitter - I don't see a higher level of debate. Indeed, it is often dreadfully low and even childish. Nor do I see greater sophistication in our discussion of election issues. Newspaper coverage and analysis can be painful in all but the biggest papers - and sometimes even in those.

We really don't seem to be getting smarter or better informed.

graeme

You raise a very good point, i hadn't even thought of that... this could well be American propaganda. Two things, though.

1. Bush has set a terrible precedent for the United States of America. Now, we look at the government he left behind with incredible distrust. We are so used to white lies, euphemisms and so on that we always look to the US when we detect foul play. I think we have reason to stop doing that since Obama came to office. 'Nough said.

2. The coup in Honduras was a short, snappy affair, and Zelaya, compared to Ahmadinejad, is not nearly as ruthless and remorseless. All Zelaya really did was something cowardly. He tried to adjust the constitutional law to help him serve another term. If you ask me, the world is more surprised (ready and willing to hate) a guy who acts like a megalomaniac than one who's got his tail between his legs. So, less people covered it than they did the '09 Iran Elections.

I'm glad you pointed this out. I won't be able to sleep tonight... :P

well, what was  cowardly about proposing a change to the constitution which would be put to a vote? The US and Canada have both done it. Nobody suggested it was cowardly. The US, in fact, has done it many times. In Canada, Harper de facto (and obviously intended for his benefit) did it when he proclaimed that elections would henceforth be every five years - and promply broke his own ruling.

There is nothing illegal or even vaguely improper in what Zelaya did. But that's the impression the press has given.

In the war between Russia and Georgia, the American press, in particular, played it constantly as a war provoked by Russia. But it was obvious to anyone who had followed it that Gergia was the troublemaker. Now the EU report officially blames Georgia - and I've seen little of it in the press.

Recently, the head of an east european counry's secret service died. The Globe referred to him as ruthless (which he was.) George Bush 1 was head of the CIA at the peak of its campaign of genocide in Guatemala. When Bush dies, do you think our press will refer to him as ruthless?

Last week, The Glove had an article on the AK 47 rifle, referring to it as the choice of dictators. Of course. It's russian, so it's evil. In fact, it is the choice of dictators who are supplied with it by Russia. American supported dictators, like the ones in Latin America, get American Armalites. Do you think any North American journalist would ever refer to the Armalite as the choice of dictators?

Incidentally, matters in Honduras are getting quite brutal. But we aren't hearing much about it. That's why it's good to have United Fruit Company and Chiquita Banana on your side.

I don't disagree with the NA journalists failing to present a fair picture of the arms situation around the world... but several documentaries and studies discuss the AK-47 from an availability/cost and durability standpoint.... the fact that it's russian seems relatively inconsequential. The AK is renowned for being able to fire with sand in it, water, mud -- sit for years and still fire like new. Moreover, its has incredible clip compatibility between AKs. The availability/cost point refers to the fact that the AK was the primary weapon distributed throughout the former Warsaw nations. When the alliance collapsed, and their economies tanked... mass proliferation of affordable, time tested AKs were suddenly available to any and all dictators in all parts of the world.

I realize you're making a separate point about bias in journalism -- but when it comes to the AK, I don't think it's nearly as black and white an example of propoganda as you appear to be suggesting. If I've missed your point - sorry in advance!

I agree with all you say. My point is they make the AK evil as an example of the evil of communism. Lots of British and American weaponry is used by dictators - the armalite rifle is common in US client dictatorships which also use largely US aircraft and armored vehicles, as well and british and US torture equipment. I have never seen a news report refer to any of the above in a negative way.

Similarly, in a recent obituary, a communist secret police boss was referred to as ruthless. Well, CIA heads, including Bush 1, have been very ruthless, indeed. But I cannot even imagine a north american agency applying that adjective to him in his obituary.

Yes, the AK is a very deadly weapon - as are all military rifles. All are used to kill innocent people. All are used by dictators as well as by democracies.  So why single out the AK for an association with killing and dictators? It's a common practice in the press - and it extends to people, all sorts of things. By doing so, probably unintentionally, the press establishes attitudes as much as it publishes news.

the AK,by the way, certainly became easily available, but not to dictators around the world. Check out the dictators of latin america. You'll find their weaponry is almost all US.

Like I said - I agree with your point about clear bias on the media.  See, we can agree from time to time. ;)

i'm not sure it's all that avoidable except perhaps at a very high level of journalistic ethics. We all naturally  and quite unconsciously will betray bias in the way we  refer to people and events. It takes a lot of training to avoid it. Mind you, I saw one example that took my by surprise. It was in Canadian Reader's Digest.

It was another about the AK47, again strongly hinting it was the weapon of evil people, unlike good old american guns. in this case, it said the AK had  killed more people than the bubonic plague.

My first thought was that this was just one of those irrelevant statistics that some writers are fond of, that seem terribly learned in telling but in fact are meaningless.

Then I remembered. The plague killed something close to a hundred million. There haven't been a hundred million killed since the AK was invented. Of those who were killed, a very large portion were killed by artillery and bombing. and, of course, many were killed by other rifles than the AK. And there is no record of exactly how many were killed by which rifle, anyway. That figure was patently ridiculous.

But I've written for RD. They have, or had, the toughest fact checkers I ever encountered. I once in a story, mentioned a tree that grew on a street in Montreal when I was kid. It had no great importance to the story. But they insisted on going to see that the tree was actually there. I'm not kidding.

How on earth could they have missed a blunder like that huge death toll for the AK?

I still don't know whether it was deliberate, or whether RD is in trouble and has been cutting its budget.

graeme