[Winona Online Democracy]
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 10:28:48 -0500 (EST)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Winona] UN Peacekeeping on the Gaza and West Bank
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
In a conversation with a Saudi friend, he mentioned how sad it was that
the UN had turned down an Arab request for UN troops on the Gaza Strip and
the West Bank. I hadn't heard of this, but I don't follow national news.
Was this on national news? What was the reason the Arabs were turned down?
Thank you for this information.
Kathleen Giebel
Response:
Given the inadequate coverage of foreign news in general (a subject of
increasing debate among journalists, both print and electronic), it is no
surprise that no information was available. A few foreign reports last
week, however, did indicate the UN concern and the upcoming debate in the
Security Council over UN involvement. A Reuters (Great Britain) dispatch
of March 20, written by Howard Goller, reported the "Security Council deep
in discussion on a Palestinian-initiated resolution that would "express
determination to create an unarmed UN military and police observer force to
help protect Palestinian civilians. The United States is expected to veto
the measure. But Council members hoped for a compromise ahead of the Arab
summit in Jordan."
I haven't seen anything more on the issue. Perhaps someone with direct
access to foreign news might know. Previous stands of the Security Council
suggest that few members other than the United States, even among some of
this country's closest allies, would oppose the measure. Nevertheless a
U.S. veto would kill the resolution regardless of support from other
members. (The United States, Great Britain, Russia, China and France have
veto power.) The U.S. has supported Israel consistently since it was
created and has used its veto frequently to kill resolutions that called
for actions that Israel has opposed. The prime minister of Israel,
Sharon, believes the uprising is an internal issue. Moreover, he clearly
has little trust in the United Nations on issues concerning Israel and Arab
states.
This reply doesn't answer your question completely, but it may be helpful.
Roy Nasstrom
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:21:58 -0500 (EST)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Winona] UN Peacekeeping on the Gaza and West Bank
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-version: 1.0
Original-recipient: rfc822;[EMAIL PROTECTED]
THANK YOU SO MUCH!! ;I thought it was just me being non-informed. But the
imformation isn't being broadcast. I don't understand Why?
Response:
Why not report on foreign affairs?
Both television and print media have given less and less attention to
events in foreign countries, other than those eventsconstituting dramatic
crises. Small squibs-or nothing- may be sufficient for reporting foreign
affairs in many newspapers. Television is much worse. Both forms of media
have been reducing their number of foreign correspondents. Even with
foreign representation, reports from overseas may not be disseminated. It
is not surprising that ABC had such trouble finding anyone to be its Moscow
correspondent. Why report news if it would not be on the news program? Even
CNN, which has given more attention to foreign news than all the other
networks combined, may soon be reducing foreign news coverage as its new
owner, Time Warner, cuts various services.
What is the cause for the decline in attention? Sometimes neglect of news
may be ideological, a deliberate attempt to keep the "bad guys" bad and the
"good guys" good. But far more important overall seems to be economics. As
media has become more consolidated, decisions on coverage have fallen more
to individuals whose primary interest is profitability and who have no news
background. For TV, advertising rates are determined by the number of
viewers watching during the previous quarter. Results of studies of focus
groups make it clear that many people switch away from oversea news quickly
unless they have some direct personal interest, which often may be dictated
by the icons of popular culture. One prominent correspondent sarcastically
remarked that important foreign political news may be killed to make way
for a report on Fergie's weight problems. Consequently, only dramatic
foreign crises receive attention, and since little news on collateral
events has taken place, understanding of the crises that are reported may
be seriously impaired.
The problem here is that the desire for greater organizational profit (even
when there is no real loss) leads to satisfying clientele with no interest
in foreign affairs at the same time it penalizes those people who do have
an interest. Alternative information is extremely difficult to find.
Perhaps there could be justification for the situation if the networks and
large newspapers were facing imminent bankruptcy (as some small newspapers
may be), but this does not appear to be the case. The issue is simply
greater profit. Under ordinary conditions, there is certainly nothing wrong
with the desire for profit, but the importance of an informed citizenry in
a democracy should, in my opinion, constitute a major consideration in
determining the relation of information to profit.
Roy Nasstrom
Roy Nasstrom, 1702 Edgewood Road, Winona, MN 55987 (507/452-3857)
----------------
This message was posted to the Winona Online Democracy Project.
Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Please sign all messages posted to this list with your actual name.
Posting of commercial solicitations is not allowed on this list.
Report problems to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
