more on War News: Go Beyond the Usual Suspects

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

I would point out that such planning is almost aways done by the military
and the French do the same.

Djf


------ Forwarded Message
From: Marc <marcaniballi () hotmail com>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 17:16:51 -0500
To: dave () farber net
Subject: RE: [IP] War News: Go Beyond the Usual Suspects

Dear Dave - Just an observation regarding what I have seen today on the
news. For IP if you think worthy.

I live in France and although Canadian am often mistaken for American -
so although I rarely watch television, I am finding it prudent to watch
a significant amount of it these days. I generally watch (in flip around
mode) France 2/3, BBS World, CNN and CNBC in order to get some breadth.
Dan Gillmor makes a significant point in his column (Thank you David for
giving me/forwarding some of the best analysis on this event that I have
read/heard).

I will point out the most shocking editorial gap I have observed so far;

General Franks had a press conference today and covered the war to date,
as well as answering questions. British and US media covered it as a
more or less blasé event since he wasn't really saying anything that we
didn't already know/strongly suspect. The French media however picked up
on one significant point (IMHO) that I didn't hear mentioned on BBC or
the US stations. General Franks stated that the Iraq campaign had been
planned for over a year. The French analysts were all wondering whether
that was a slip of the tongue (not likely) or a way to subtly cover the
US politically when it later becomes general knowledge that the US had
planned this (and potentially future) Middle East "nation
re-engineering" programs and only carried on the international political
side of the campaign to be polite.

Regards,


Marc Aniballi
Mobile:    +33 617 79 15 86
Home:    +33 490 53 29 20


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ip () v2 listbox com [mailto:owner-ip () v2 listbox com] On Behalf
Of Dave Farber
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 8:24 PM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] War News: Go Beyond the Usual Suspects


------ Forwarded Message
From: Dan Gillmor <dgillmor () sjmercury com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:38:48 -0800
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Fyi

Dave, we posted my Sunday column early. May be relevant to your readers.
Definitely relevant to you, as you get a mention...

http://weblog.siliconvalley.com/column/dangillmor/archives/000875.shtml


------ End of Forwarded Message

War News: Go Beyond the Usual Suspects
€ posted by Dan Gillmor 12:14 PM
€ permanent link to this item


What follows is this Sunday's column. I've gotten permission to post it
early, because it feels timely.


In the 1991 Gulf War, the American public was fed an a homogenized
version
of reality. The news consisted of the same sound bites, presidential
declarations, Pentagon briefings, etc. -- essentially identical
information
no matter what the media source.

In the first 24 hours of the latest Gulf War, the same situation
prevailed
for the vast majority of Americans. This time around, however, a
minority --
but a growing one -- had learned a lesson from the aftermath of the
Sept. 11
attacks. They had a robust online alternative. The World Wide Web,
e-mail
lists and other online sources offered content with context and nuance.

Maybe you didn't have time at the start of this war to check out the
alternatives. In coming weeks and months, please make the time.

The amount of information this time is going to be overwhelming.
Hundreds of
professional journalists are in the Middle East covering the events, and
the
Web gives us access to most of what they're going to tell us.

Many are ''embedded'' in combat units. They'll provide all manner of
on-the-ground reports, albeit censored, using modern communications
technology that will shock us with its immediacy.

Some of the coverage will come from media that do not parrot the U.S.
government's view of the conflict. In the weeks leading up to the war,
when
much of the American press dismissively covered internal dissent and
mocked
the rest of the world's misgivings as weak-kneed whining, many people
started looking to British media for the kind of information and
opinions
they weren't finding here.

Several weeks ago, the London Observer broke a story of U.S. spying on
the
United Nations delegations of Security Council members. It quoted a
memorandum by a National Security Agency official. The U.S. media
organizations that bothered to cover the story downplayed it, but it was
big
news elsewhere -- and on the Web.

The rise of the passionate amateur, meanwhile, has given us valuable new
insights. Nowhere is that more true than in weblogs and other kinds of
personal media that transcend the soapbox genre. Collectively, they
expand
the marketplace of ideas.

Some webloggers serve a clearinghouse function, becoming a collaborative
filter and conversation. They sort through the journalism, professional
and
amateur, and point the rest of us to the most interesting coverage.

I also subscribe to a number of mailing lists where other subscribers do
much the same thing. They spot interesting new coverage, and tell
everyone
else on the list. I'm a big fan of Dave Farber and his ³Interesting
People²
list; Farber's readers tell him about useful material and he tells
everyone
else.

The soapboxes have their own unique value. These are political weblogs
that
deal mostly with policy issues, with the war and international politics
at
the top of the current agenda. Sometimes they're the classic ''sound and
fury, signifying nothing,'' but the best force us to reconsider our own
biases. I frequently disagree with Glenn Reynolds, but his postings are
always relevant, often enlightening.

The source and quality of information are as important online as in
traditional media, but more difficult to verify in some cases. As I
write
this, meanwhile, there's a serious discussion online about the bona
fides of
a weblogger who says he's in Baghdad, telling us how things look to an
Iraqi
citizen. We're developing new hierarchies of trust for this new medium,
just
as we have for the traditional publications and broadcasts.

I don't know if the most deeply interactive nature of the Net will
emerge
fully in this war, not the way it will when information technology and
networks are even more pervasive than they are today. We'll get a hint
of it
as on-the-ground journalists with fancy portable telecommunications gear
give us their perspectives.

If you want to be informed, roam widely. Watch and read things that
support
your own beliefs. Then look for commentary and data that don't. It's all
out
there.

The need for a better-informed citizenry has never been greater, not in
an
era of such pivotal changes and world-shaping decisions. Yet there has
rarely been such prevailing shallowness in public discourse.

Our business and political leaders know that reality is an infinite
palette
of grays, not starkly black and white. We know that, too, because we
deal
with those subtleties in your everyday life. Yet our leaders -- and,
yes,
major elements of the mass media -- reduce complex issues to simplistic
slogans. Why do we go along with this?

I'm not asking you to change your mind on fundamental issues. But I
implore
you to use these new tools to keep it ajar.

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as marcaniballi () hotmail com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

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


------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

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