From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2003 #101 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: les@jmdl.com Errors-To: les@jmdl.com Precedence: bulk Unsubscribe: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe Archives: http://www.smoe.org/lists/joni Websites: http://www.jmdl.com http://www.jonimitchell.com JMDL Digest Sunday, February 9 2003 Volume 2003 : Number 101 Sign up now for JoniFest 2003! http://www.jonifest.com ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: welfare, grants and housing (njc) [Murphycopy@aol.com] Re: journalism, articles and opinions NJC [dsk ] RE.NJC Ready to fling those frisbees! [gerime ] NJC Bloody War/Released Chemicals NJC [dsk ] njc another view [vince ] Re: welfare, grants and housing (njc) now space program ["Kate Bennett" <] NJC North Korea and U.S Strategy ["Gillian Apter" ] NJC If not war, what can be done? PC and NJC [dsk ] Re: NJC If not war, what can be done? PC and NJC [colin ] Re: NJC If not war, what can be done? PC and NJC [dsk ] breaking news NJC ["Kate Bennett" ] queen's concert/brian wilson/etc/NJC [Bruce Kimerer ] Re: breaking news NJC [David Sadowski ] RE: So much for the Aussie Bootlegger... [John Low > Medical procedures, schmedical procedures! We won't be happy until we dominate the universe! --Bob ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 17:14:58 -0500 From: dsk Subject: Re: journalism, articles and opinions NJC kasey simpson wrote: > > Catherine asked: > Rhetorical question: can journalism be completely objective? > > I've been meaning to answer this for some time. My gut reaction > is no. Unless the person in question hasn't formed an opinon on > the subject they are covering. I think that's why the reader has > to read all views to come to the best (not right or wrong) informed > opinon they can. I agree with you, Kasey, that it's important to read as many views as possible. I disagree, though, on your comment about reporters. A reporter's job is to NOT come up with their own opinion (or if they do, to keep it to themself). A columnist/commentator's job is to formulate an opinion and share it. Two very different jobs. Two very different agendas. The aim of the reporter is to inform; the aim of the columnist is to persuade. Of course, there's some overlap. Sometimes a reporter will get into analyzing the situation as well as reporting it, and when that's done there's usually an "analysis" heading in the article, or at least there is in the NYTimes, or it's made clear in the TV or radio newscast that the speaker is giving her or his personal opinion. And, of course, columnists give some factual information that can be useful to the reader in making up her own mind about things. With columnists, it's extremely important to keep in mind that the information they give is meant to bolster their particular view, so some "facts" will be left out, others will be highlighted, other facts, if they must be included, will be modified to fit the writer's biased perspective. As was made clear in the recent set-to onlist, even a historical fact can be twisted to fit a writer's agenda. So there's a huge difference in the goal of an article by a reporter and the goal of an opinion piece by a columnist or commentator. That's why the editorial page of a newspaper is separate from the front page, that's why there are "columnists", that's why there are "reporters". Ideally, as I understand it from Journalism 101, reporters attempt to objectively describe within the first paragraph or two the "who, what, where, and when" of the situation they're covering, and then perhaps go on to "why", usually by getting lots of people's comments. The GOAL is to be objective. Since reporters are human and seeing the world through their particular eyes objectivity is not absolutely possible. However, objectivity is the goal and the aim of their writing is to inform. So at the end of reading a reporter's article, different views would be given and the reader is left with a lot of information and must draw her or his own conclusions. Read the long articles in the NYTimes or any mainstream newspaper and you'll see what I mean. Sometimes there's so much information, much of it conflicting within the same article, that it's impossible to draw any definitive conclusions. That, to me, is the sign of a "good" or "great" article. That aim of being objective in reporting is also the reason that comments and the facts used need to be verifiable, and the sources "real", at least in the mainstream press. The information has to stand up to worldwide scrutiny. That is the complete opposite of the responsibility of a columnist. The aim in commentary is to persuade, not to inform, and the assumption in that type of writing is that the "facts" will be used to further that writer's agenda. So, when reading columnists, it's always important to keep the propaganda aspect of the writer's intentions in mind. There is absolutely NO aiming for objectivity. And that's across the political spectrum. The columnist I most often agree with is Paul Krugman in the NYTimes. Even reading his columns, though, I always keep in mind that he's probably not telling everything there is to tell about any particular issue. He is trying to persuade people to his view, not to objectively inform people of all aspects of an issue. That's the job of reporters. Also, when reading anything, it's helpful to know the publication it was printed in because some publications have a clear-cut bias and the editors would choose to present things in a certain way. An article on homelessness would probably be on the front page of the "liberal/left-leaning" Village Voice, for example, and mentioned on the inner pages of the "conservative/right-wing" NY Post, if the information was considered newsworthy at all by those editors. Two of my favorite columnists from the Village Voice are Nat Hentoff and James Ridgeway. As much as I like their way of thinking and the way they write, I'd never post one of their columns and claim they were presenting the facts. Not only are they columnists, they're writing for a paper that, in general, presents a left-wing view of the world. The U.S. mainstream papers and reporters that people quote so often, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe, aim to be middle of the road, that is, objective not only in the reporters' articles, but also in giving space to all the different issues and opinions of the day. That is the goal of the publishers and editors of those papers, and deliberately biased writing is kept on the editorial pages. Again, that is the goal. Deciding on what goes above the fold, or what photo to put with a particular article, are all human decisions and it's impossible to be 100% objective when making such decisions. I know that at the NYTimes (and probably other papers), the editors as a group make those decisions every day. That is another way, in addition to verifiability, that they attempt to make their presentation of the news as objective as possible. The short of it all is to read everything with a critical eye and take everything with a grain of salt. It's impossible even in a multi-page article that aims for objectivity to give every bit of any story. As far as posting items to the list goes, I think it's important, and intellectually honest, to specify the type of article as well as the writer and the publication, and if known, the bias of both. There are ways for anyone to find out the writer's bias and when posted items have been extremely skewed to one viewpoint, I've investigated. There's not always time for such investigation, though, and it seems to me the sender is the one who needs to be upfront about that bias and avoid presenting anything as being the whole truth. No one article, newscast, opinion will ever be the whole truth. Debra Shea ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 22:36:03 +0000 From: gerime Subject: RE.NJC Ready to fling those frisbees! Wow Bob I never win anything, persistence does pay after all. A big thank you. Off to buy a lottery ticket now. :-) Gerry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 17:48:43 -0500 From: dsk Subject: NJC Bloody War/Released Chemicals NJC Here's a gut wrenching view that's different from all the conservative items posted recently: How the Coming War Stacks Up Blood, Stats and Tears http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0306/harkavy.php From this week's Village Voice, with an accompanying article about the effects of the war: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0306/solomon.php Both of these articles disprove the Canadian columnist's contention in an item recently posted to the list that people in the U.S. are unconcerned about the effects of the war. See, being a columnist, he really didn't look for anything that ran counter to the point he was trying to prove. And, coming from the Village Voice, of course both of the articles above have a left-wing bias. One stat listed explains one question I've had about the plan to bomb Iraq. If Bush and cronies are so certain there are chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, isn't the bombing going to release some of that from their containers? Bushies are certain huge stockpiles exist and yet they supposedly don't know where any of it is located so it's not as though bombs could be "programmed" to avoid those stockpiles (assuming bombs can be programmed to always accurately hit a particular target, and experience has shown that's not possible). So, when thousands of people die from having all of that existing chemical and biological substance released into the air, is the U.S. responsible because U.S. bombs released it all? I say yes. Being untrusting of the official word our government sometimes gives us, I imagine that if such substances are released, that the U.S. government will claim that Iraqis somehow did it, even though they'll probably all be dead or in bomb shelters, if there are such protected areas there. We're being set up already to believe that it will be entirely and solely the Iraqis actions if chemical or biological weapons are released. I don't buy it. Anyway, among the chilling collection of stats is this one: "Number of U.S. Army soldiers ready to decontaminate corpses and send them back home for burial: 700" Great, looks like the U.S. has got it covered. I think I'm going to throw up now. Debra Shea ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 18:03:07 -0500 From: vince Subject: njc another view Randy Remote wrote: >Vince, >I never knew that circumcision was so central to the >roots of Christianity. Kind of makes sense, though, >patriarchy that it is. > I would argue that the earliest of the earliest church was not a patriarchy but... > The problem with quoting scripture >is that it is only convincing to those that accept the >Bible as absolute truth, which I do not. > Oh, Randy, when did I say otherwise? I don't even accept the Bible as "absolute truth" myself. The confession of faith of the Lutheran confessions, which I follow, is that the Scriptures are the norm for the faith and the life of the Church. When I post using Scriptural citations, it is to explain the point of view of those of us who view the Scriptures as having authority for us. Have I ever once attempted to "convert" anyone, or imply that Scriptural teachings apply to those who lie outside of the community of faith? I think not. Rather, I have spoken in solidarity with those outside the community when they have been assailed by religious zealots and those who would imply judgment on those outside the Judeo-Christian faith. I will also speak for those within a faith community who are assailed, key word, assailed, by those who reject faith as valid. I think I have a long record of standing with those who are outside the faith community since I have a lot more in common with them than with the religious zealots. In other words I am on your side and only post on what Scriptures say so that you all might understand our mindset just as others explain what is the motivation for their opinions. The day I try to say that anything of faith is authoritative on those outside the community, please shoot me. Vince ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 15:32:24 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: Re: welfare, grants and housing (njc) now space program another thing that bothers me is that we now have litter in space! apparently junk left over from whatever, that is just orbiting around out there...as if pollution of one planet isn't enough, we are now doing it elsewhere! ******************************************** Kate Bennett: www.katebennett.com Sponsored by Polysonics/Atlantis Sound Labs Over the Moon- "bringing the melancholy world of twilight to life almost like magic" All Music Guide ******************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 00:57:44 +0100 From: "Gillian Apter" Subject: NJC North Korea and U.S Strategy Hiya, Lori, I received this post from the MoveOn organisation in December, and read the link below with great interest. This may answer some of your questions. MoveOn wrote: " ..... it's more likely that emphasizing North Korea's threat while not aggressively pursuing military action against the country is serving US strategic interests. How? According to several analysts, the US hopes to use the threat from North Korea as a tactic to push through the building of controversial missile defense systems in the area. Such missile defenses would help contain the growing threat from China, the one country that is developing enough economic and military strength to compete with the US. This is a much more appealing strategy for the US than directly attacking North Korea, which has its own army of 1.2 million and a strong alliance with nuclear capable China. .... From the article int eh link below: "The Bush administration may not be interested in removing North Korea from the threat list. A perceived North Korean threat is necessary to justify building the Theater Missile Defense (TMD) system, intended to counter China's growing military and political power. With China's economy growing at seven percent, it is only a matter of time before it dwarfs Japan in power and strategic influence. This worries sectors of Japan's government, especially the military establishment, and also concerns the Bush administration, who do not want to see U.S. regional power and economic interests threatened by China. Since neither the U.S. nor Japan are willing to admit to building the new missile system to counteract a Beijing threat, North Korea is currently being used as the primary reason for creating the TMD in Japan." Includes a map. http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=920 " Cheers, Gill (in Madrid) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 19:14:23 -0500 From: dsk Subject: NJC If not war, what can be done? PC and NJC This was asked a while ago and it's tough finding an answer that would be, "yes, that without doubt would resolve the entire situation in every way." The situation is so complex, I don't know if there is such an answer. My thoughts are that we (every country) need to rely on long-term police-type action (that action throughout the world is what is disrupting/dismantling the terrorist network), with more accurate and intensive intelligence gathering, and the U.S. especially needs to make an attempt to consider how it all evolved in the first place and to address those issues; NOT TO EXCUSE anything, just to look at things broadly, rather than in a "we're all good, they're all bad" way. Those actions are all long-term and much of it behind the scenes and not at all instant gratification or cowboyish, very un-American and completely un-Bushish. Bombing a country until its residents cower or die will do nothing but lead to decades of hatred of the U.S. for its bullying and deadly behavior. More hatred, more determined terrorists. Oh, yes, I know there already ARE terrorists... well, let's find them and figure out what to do with them, punishment, trial, execution, prison, whatever fits the specifics... and not create millions more, some of whom aren't even born yet. Americans have a short memory. People in other countries do not. The moral argument Bush uses of liberating Iraqis is convenient for him and isn't believable. Saddam killed thousands of his own people in 1988; in 1989 aid to Iraq from the U.S. was doubled, given by Bush One. Saddam was then our ally against Iran, so the U.S. couldn't be bothered in 1989 by the way Saddam had just killed thousands of his own people. Now, Bush Two has that as one of his righteous concerns. Yeah, right. As a side issue, an extremely important one, the world must find a way to deal with every leader who slaughters his own people, and not pick and chose when to be morally concerned based solely on self-interest. It's no wonder so many people in the world do not believe Bush's concern about the Iraqi people. Obviously Saddam and his cronies are harming innocent citizens, and Saddam needs to be deposed, the sooner the better. Again, targeted covert action (and I'm thinking giving the people there support and a way to choose another leader) would be preferable in my mind to a mass killing, which Saddam and cronies will probably escape anyway. Where, for example, is Osama? And regarding all that bombing in Afghanistan, which I agreed with because most of it was targeting the Taliban so I can't claim to always be anti-war (admirable as that is to me), I think it's a mistake to now have so few military people in Afghanistan, when supposedly "we" (the U.S.) were going to assist in rebuilding that country (hey, even *I* believed that one). Why is there so little news now about what's happening there? The last I read is that the warlords are taking over again, which is what set up the environment for the Taliban in the first place, and that the only "secure" area is Kandahar itself, and even that security is precarious. The U.S. again has not kept its promise. Why would anyone think we'll keep the rebuilding promise in Iraq either? That's enough for awhile. Usually I manage to stay out of the discussion here. Yesterday's raised security alert, and since then hearing more sirens than usual, seeing policemen talking to everyone who's manning the doorways of buildings in the neighborhood, seeing National Guard members in fatigues that look designed for camouflage in a city (whitish, with some gray)... it's impossible to avoid thinking about this stuff. I love this city so much, and with every conversation I have, often with people raised in places I have no direct experience of, I am reminded how much I love the people that live here. From my perspective, Bush's actions are making us all more vulnerable and will not solve anything. I would expect the people in every other place to have such personal and intense emotions also, even if their specifics don't match mine. Good luck everyone. Debra Shea, in NYC ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 16:13:19 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: NJC Two great articles on war thanks for posting the articles sarah...weighing in on the journalism discussion, i agree that it is pretty much all someone's opinion... for instance a sentence from one of the articles sarah posted said this: "The Russians and French responded to Powell with some artful platitudes about the need to strengthen the inspections regime. " a change of 2 words could greatly change the slant of this sentence, for example: "The Russians and French responded to Powell with some good arguments about the need to strengthen the inspections regime. " so choosing words is most definately a subjective thing as 'artful platitudes' vs 'good arguments' demonstrates...the words chosen definately reflect a writer's bias imo... an interesting discussion for this group given the how we dissect so much written content of joni's & other writers... ******************************************** Kate Bennett: www.katebennett.com Sponsored by Polysonics/Atlantis Sound Labs Over the Moon- "bringing the melancholy world of twilight to life almost like magic" All Music Guide ******************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 00:52:10 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: NJC If not war, what can be done? PC and NJC even if this war is going to be fought for the 'right reasons', my feeling is it will do the opposite of what we want. it will INCREASE terrorism rather than decrease it. I hope I am mistaken but I can't really see a different result. bw colin ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 21:57:44 -0300 From: "Wally Kairuz" Subject: RE: njc circumcision another view at the risk of sounding facetious or plain silly, then why are you charged only 8 dollars at j's hang out in nyc if you're uncut? to me it seems that most american men consider cut guys UNcool (i'm talking about men who look at dicks THAT way). cut guys have to pay 10 dollars. i just go to the guy at ticket window, flash him and i pay 8 bucks to get in. i guess it's the only lucky aspect of having born in argentina, where you they would remove your tonsils but they'd leave your dick alone. wallyK - -----Mensaje original----- De: owner-joni@jmdl.com [mailto:owner-joni@jmdl.com]En nombre de Randy Remote Enviado el: Sabado, 08 de Febrero de 2003 06:47 p.m. Para: vince; joni@smoe.org Asunto: Re: njc circumscision another view I still have the mark of circumcision. (Glad I have it as > explained before, and it also looks better to me, and left me looking > like all of the other boys in the school shower, a big, big plus at the > time and even now at the gym). This is perhaps the only argument in favor that I have heard that makes some sense. In essence "because everyone else is doing it". A poor reason to do something, although peer pressure and acceptance are important to people, especially the young. RR ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 01:07:53 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: njc circumcision another view Wally Kairuz wrote: >at the risk of sounding facetious or plain silly, then why are you charged >only 8 dollars at j's hang out in nyc if you're uncut? to me it seems that >most american men consider cut guys UNcool (i'm talking about men who look >at dicks THAT way). cut guys have to pay 10 dollars. i just go to the guy at >ticket window, flash him and i pay 8 bucks to get in. i guess it's the only >lucky aspect of having born in argentina, where you they would remove your >tonsils but they'd leave your dick alone. >wallyK > > > You manage it every time Wally! LOL! Yes, many men who look at dicks THAT way do like the uncircumcised dick. However, I sam sure just because it is 'different'. I just spkoe with my MD frined in New Jersey. i asked her about this subject. She refused to do the op on babies unless it was a medical necessity. She did not do it on her own son. They had a huge fight when he had hisown son done! 'I couldn't believe he id it' I taught him better thatn to mutilate his own child'. I wa srather surprised as although she is a dear friend we are poles apart on many things. She loves Bush, keeps guns, and is definately a right con with a capital C. But she aint all bad! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 20:13:56 -0500 From: dsk Subject: Re: NJC If not war, what can be done? PC and NJC colin wrote: > > even if this war is going to be fought for the 'right reasons', my > feeling is it will do the opposite of what we want. it will INCREASE > terrorism rather than decrease it. I hope I am mistaken but I can't > really see a different result. Me either. I can find nothing good about it, and agree completely that it will increase terrorism because the bombing does not address the specifics in any way, not specific people, not specific issues. I find it interesting that, in general, the people most adamant about waging this all-out bombing war, and letting it be known here and in letters to the editor of various papers and magazines, do not live in a place that is a likely target. Of course, no one is safe anywhere. The cities, though, are more vulnerable. More people in one area. More bang for the buck, so to speak. Debra Shea ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 01:24:57 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: NJC If not war, what can be done? PC and NJC dsk wrote: > > >> >> > > do not live in a >place that is a likely target. > Unfortuantely John works bang in the middle of the most importnat parts of London. i worry about it all the time. > >Of course, no one is safe anywhere. > In the case of a nuke strike, i agree. i think tho in the case of a terroist attcak, out lying places or counrty places and not likely to be hit. The big cities, where the money is and where lots o people are and where the most damage can be inflicted, will be the targets, I would think. I wuld have thought that people are not really the target-the things that cost hige amoutns of money and will cause the most disruption are. Like with us going tobomb Afghanistan and Iraq. The poeple are not the tartget and the fact so many get killed is well' too bad' huh? In the case of all out nuking, I hope to be right in line for it. who'd wnat to survive to later die slowly and in agony? I am still haging on to the idea that no one would be so stupid but with the 'leaders' we now have, that is increasingly seeming to be a very childish idea! so i knit and read and write email and think fuck it! what can i do? > The cities, though, are more >vulnerable. More people in one area. More bang for the buck, so to speak. > >Debra Shea ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 18:50:11 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: life is for learning PC & NJC a thought provoking, in depth opinion: AN UNNECESSARY WAR http://www.foreignpolicy.com/wwwboard/walts.html ******************************************** Kate Bennett: www.katebennett.com Sponsored by Polysonics/Atlantis Sound Labs Over the Moon- "bringing the melancholy world of twilight to life almost like magic" All Music Guide ******************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 19:11:48 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: breaking news NJC February 8, 2003 ... Breaking news: France and Germany, with the support of the Vatican, may introduce a plan to triple the number of United Nations inspectors in Iraq, and have those inspectors supported by UN troops inside Iraq. This plan, developed without consulting the U.S. government, appears intended to avert an offensive attack by the United States and United Kingdom against Iraq ... http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/article.asp?id=373 ******************************************** Kate Bennett: www.katebennett.com Sponsored by Polysonics/Atlantis Sound Labs Over the Moon- "bringing the melancholy world of twilight to life almost like magic" All Music Guide ******************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 22:37:11 -0500 From: Bruce Kimerer Subject: queen's concert/brian wilson/etc/NJC I saw part of that Jubilee concert too the other night -- did not hear Brian Wilson perform, but saw him at the finale looking uncomfortable and sort of out of it -- which is just the way he looks now. I had seen him perform about a year ago on a bill with Paul Simon. He was good, but emphasized all the obvious Beach Boys hits without digging too deep into the BB catalog or his own solo work. (He did do Surf's Up at least; one of the most brilliant songs ever.) It was worth it to see a legend who I never thought would perform again. And though it is kinda sad to see him so, I don't know what the right word is -- oblivious? At least he's out there; and I give him a lot of credit for that. He's responsible for so much great work -- (the intro to California Girls still gives me goosebumps.) The concert also made me think of something while watching Joe Cocker do With A Little Help From My Friends. I'm sure this has been discussed here before, but...it made me consider the cover versions of songs that totally redefined the originals; almost eclipsing them. I think Cocker's arrangement of the Beatles tune certainly did that. As well as Hendrix's All Along the Watchtower. Maybe CSNY's Woodstock fits this category, too. I've been trying to think of more...any other thoughts out there? Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 21:33:57 -0600 From: David Sadowski Subject: Re: breaking news NJC How does this avoid war when the US has already decided to invade regardless of what the UN does? Kate Bennett wrote: >February 8, 2003 > >... Breaking news: France and Germany, with the support of the Vatican, may >introduce a plan to triple the number of United Nations inspectors in Iraq, >and have those inspectors supported by UN troops inside Iraq. This plan, >developed without consulting the U.S. government, appears intended to avert >an offensive attack by the United States and United Kingdom against Iraq ... >http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/article.asp?id=373 > >******************************************** >Kate Bennett: www.katebennett.com >Sponsored by Polysonics/Atlantis Sound Labs >Over the Moon- >"bringing the melancholy world of twilight >to life almost like magic" All Music Guide >******************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 19:51:59 -0800 (PST) From: John Low Subject: RE: So much for the Aussie Bootlegger... Bob wrote: For Andrea & anyone else who's interested. As of this morning E-bay had closed down the Joni cd's this guy was selling. They usually do a pretty good job of shutting those down quickly. And though he was a prime suspect, John "Lowdown" Low claims he is NOT involved! :~) - ----------------------- Thanks for clearing my name, Bob. :-) Of course, I would NEVER EVER off-load the 'unofficial' Joni treasures I own, (most of which have come from South Carolina!) And, anyway, the wonders of ebay are a mystery to me. Believe it or not, I've never been there. Cheers, John (Sydney) NP. Joni & James at the BBC - WOW!!! Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 22:45:23 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: Re: NJC Two great articles on war Kate, I think what you say is exactly right, and that's one good example of why objectivity in journalism is virtually impossible, whether it's a report or something on the editorial pages. The words you choose to describe what you see often say more about your own mind, than about the thing you're supposed to be observing. And the more politically complex the story, the more likely you'll be picking your words with great care, to satisfy your own political agenda, or the editor's, the publisher's, the owner's, the advertisers', or the readers'. For example, there's a big hoo-ha in Canada about the CBC, Canadian Broadcasting Company - which is state-owned and therefore seen as a reflection of government to some extent - refusing to call Palestinian gunmen "terrorists". As an example, the National Post newspaper (which is pro-Israel) might say in its reports: "Palestinian terrorists last night gunned down a group of Israeli teenagers at a bus stop." [Subtext: Palestinians are evil, Israelis are completely innocent.] Reporting the same incident, the CBC (which is more pro-Palestinian) might say: "Palestinian militiamen (or gunmen) last night gunned down a group of young Israeli settlers at a bus stop." [Subtext: the Palestinian attackers are an army that some might view as legitimate, and the young Israelis maybe shouldn't have been there in the first place.] It's hard if not impossible to write a brief news report about a complex political issue without these subtexts and loaded words, so I would say objectivity in reporting is close to impossible. The best you can hope for IMO is to be fair. Sarah At 4:13 PM -0800 02/08/2003, Kate Bennett wrote: >"The Russians and French responded to Powell with some artful platitudes >about the need to strengthen the inspections regime. ". . . a change >of 2 words could greatly change the slant of this sentence, for >example: "The Russians and French responded to Powell with some good >arguments about the need to strengthen the inspections regime." so >choosing words is most definately a subjective thing as 'artful >platitudes' vs 'good arguments' demonstrates...the words chosen >definately reflect a writer's bias imo... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 02:12:55 -0500 From: ljirvin@jmdl.com Subject: Today's Library Links: February 9 On February 9 the following items were published: 1974: "Folk-Rock's Ethel Merman" - New York Times (Review - Concert) http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=875 1974: "Joni Mitchell Emerges from her Retreat" - Toronto Star (Biography) http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=600 1974: "Lost Innocence with a rock and roll band" - New Musical Express (Review - Concert) http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=208 2000: "Both Sides Now" - Billboard (Interview) http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=633 ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2003 #101 ***************************** ------- Post messages to the list by clicking here: mailto:joni@smoe.org Unsubscribe by clicking here: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe ------- Siquomb, isn't she? (http://www.siquomb.com/siquomb.cfm)