[Winona Online Democracy]
I do recall a short AP release about Sharon refusing to allow UN
human-rights inspectors into the West Bank a few months ago. I recall
thinking about the fact that when Saddam Hussein refused to allow inspectors
to look for weapons in Iraq, the assumption was that he had weapons and
wanted to hide them, and that Ariel Sharon was now opposing efforts to send
inspectors to look for human-rights violations in Israeli-controlled
territory, in which case objectivity and consistency would demand the
assumption that Sharon was trying to hide human-rights violations. No such
statements were ever inmy knowledge published, however.
>From: Roy Nasstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [Winona] UN Peacekeeping on the Gaza and West Bank
>Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 15:26:16 -0600 (CST)
>
>[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]
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
----------------
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]
