Krugman on The Great Media Divide (from the New York Times)

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Gunnar Helliesen <gunnar () bitcon no>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:15:38 +0100
To: "Dave Farber (E-post)" <dave () farber net>
Subject: Krugman on The Great Media Divide (from the New York Times)

Prof. Farber,

For IP if you wish.

As a European, I was hugely relieved to finally read an observation like
this in US media. I follow both European and US media every day and my
frustration over the complete disconnect in reality perception has only been
increasing. The important thing is not to decide who is "right", but to
acknowledge that the difference in perception and reporting is there.

---------------------------------------------------------

"Behind the Great Divide
By PAUL KRUGMAN


There has been much speculation why Europe and the U.S. are suddenly at such
odds. Is it about culture? About history? But I haven't seen much discussion
of an obvious point: We have different views partly because we see different
news.

Let's back up. Many Americans now blame France for the chill in
U.S.-European relations. There is even talk of boycotting French products.

But France's attitude isn't exceptional. Last Saturday's huge demonstrations
confirmed polls that show deep distrust of the Bush administration and
skepticism about an Iraq war in all major European nations, whatever
position their governments may take. In fact, the biggest demonstrations
were in countries whose governments are supporting the Bush administration.

There were big demonstrations in America too. But distrust of the U.S.
overseas has reached such a level, even among our British allies, that a
recent British poll ranked the U.S. as the world's most dangerous nation -
ahead of North Korea and Iraq.

So why don't other countries see the world the way we do? News coverage is a
large part of the answer. Eric Alterman's new book, "What Liberal Media?"
doesn't stress international comparisons, but the difference between the
news reports Americans and Europeans see is a stark demonstration of his
point. At least compared with their foreign counterparts, the "liberal" U.S.
media are strikingly conservative - and in this case hawkish.

I'm not mainly talking about the print media. There are differences, but the
major national newspapers in the U.S. and the U.K. at least seem to be
describing the same reality.

Most people, though, get their news from TV - and there the difference is
immense. The coverage of Saturday's antiwar rallies was a reminder of the
extent to which U.S. cable news, in particular, seems to be reporting about
a different planet than the one covered by foreign media.

What would someone watching cable news have seen? On Saturday, news anchors
on Fox described the demonstrators in New York as "the usual protesters" or
"serial protesters." CNN wasn't quite so dismissive, but on Sunday morning
the headline on the network's Web site read "Antiwar rallies delight Iraq,"
and the accompanying picture showed marchers in Baghdad, not London or New
York.

This wasn't at all the way the rest of the world's media reported Saturday's
events, but it wasn't out of character. For months both major U.S. cable
news networks have acted as if the decision to invade Iraq has already been
made, and have in effect seen it as their job to prepare the American public
for the coming war.

So it's not surprising that the target audience is a bit blurry about the
distinction between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda. Surveys show that a
majority of Americans think that some or all of the Sept. 11 hijackers were
Iraqi, while many believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11, a
claim even the Bush administration has never made. And since many Americans
think that the need for a war against Saddam is obvious, they think that
Europeans who won't go along are cowards.

Europeans, who don't see the same things on TV, are far more inclined to
wonder why Iraq - rather than North Korea, or for that matter Al Qaeda - has
become the focus of U.S. policy. That's why so many of them question
American motives, suspecting that it's all about oil or that the
administration is simply picking on a convenient enemy it knows it can
defeat. They don't see opposition to an Iraq war as cowardice; they see it
as courage, a matter of standing up to the bullying Bush administration.

There are two possible explanations for the great trans-Atlantic media
divide. One is that European media have a pervasive anti-American bias that
leads them to distort the news, even in countries like the U.K. where the
leaders of both major parties are pro-Bush and support an attack on Iraq.
The other is that some U.S. media outlets - operating in an environment in
which anyone who questions the administration's foreign policy is accused of
being unpatriotic - have taken it as their assignment to sell the war, not
to present a mix of information that might call the justification for war
into question.

So which is it? I've reported, you decide."


---------------------------------------------------------


Gunnar

-- 
Gunnar Helliesen   | Bergen IT Consult     | Open Source activist
Systems Consultant | Bergen, Norway        | Jaguar enthusiast
gunnar () bitcon no   | www.bitcon.no/~gunnar | Märklin collector


------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To unsubscribe or update your address, click
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/