In message
<[log in to unmask]>, Denys
Beauchemin <[log in to unmask]> writes
>A little while back, I posted a message stating the media bias in Europe
>was far worse than what we experience here in the US.  Recently a few
>items came to my attention that heavily supports my statements.  The
>first link below will lead you to a story about a French journalist who
>recently wrote a book detailing how 5 major newspapers in France were
>presenting an incredibly biased view of the recent war in Iraq.  It was
>so biased that if you only got your news from these sources, you would
>not understand how the US liberated Baghdad in just 3 weeks with so few
>casualties.
>
>http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1230FranceWarBook30-ON.html
>
>The newspaper that employs the author of the book showed typical
>FredWhitian open-mindedness in its reaction and promptly sacked the
>journalist.  In yet a further display of FredWhitian unbias, none of the
>newspapers even acknowledge the book.  BTW, I plan to get this book and
>will provide a short synopsis after I read it.

In a typical display of DenysBeauchemian bias, he hasn't actually read
this book, just an article about it. But he's very sure of what he'll
find...

And you probably will Denys, you probably will. The bias is not in the
article per se, but in your selection of it to put before us, and not
something less inimicable to you. But there's no shame there; I'm sure
we all do that.

The shame perhaps, might be to ask why you are cowering behind an email
address that you bounce everything to. Not just on HP3000-L, where there
might be some excuse for it, but in personal emails, such as the one you
wrote to me (and *just* to me, not to the HP3000-L). And as, I believe,
Brice Yokem has also found.

In that email to me, to which, in the close-minded and biased way you
are so proud of, you clearly did not want an answer, you wrote:

=====================================================

Roy Brown wrote in part:

<snip>
Perhaps I will stroll up to Buck House, which is just round the corner
from me, and see if I can successfully apprise the Prez of my views on
the Iraq war. In a spirit of free and frank discussion, of course, but
one which I could not, apparently, adopt in the Land of the Free...

<snip>

As you explain to "the Prez" why you oppose the liberation of Iraq, I
surely would like to be in a position to hear why you so ardently
support Saddam Hussein, his rape rooms, torture chambers, gassing of his
own people, his executions and his populating of mass graves (upwards of
one half million so far.)

=====================================================

I don't quite know what to say about this. Obviously it's spectacularly
insulting to me, but it's so intemperate, and it's so unlikely I'd
actually think that (for which read 'it's so wrong'), that it's clear
that Denys has departed a very long way from his customary objectivity.

Not realising that Denys was in write-only mode, though, I spent some
time composing a thoughtful reply. Only to have it contemptuously, if
mechanically, rejected.

Denys, that's a gross discourtesy (and, believe me, other words have
been considered for that position).

If you *must* write write-only, at least say so, so people don't have to
waste their e-breath on replying. But, why not give a reply address, on
a private email? Is your position, far from being strong, such that you
fear it could be demolished by a well-aimed and considered reply? That's
the message you send when you daren't accept a reply.

But, as you proudly say, you are closed-minded. Well, gee, that's no way
for a grown man to be. So you want *us* to be open to what you have to
say, but you won't consider what *we* have to say? No, it has to work
both ways. Otherwise, why not just make stuff up that fits your
prejudices, and peddle that?

Sure you are entitled to your position (as I am to mine, however
uncomfortable that may be for you to accept), but we must both be open
at least to considering material from the opposite view. Even if just to
try to demolish or counter it - something you can't do if you aren't
open.

And you may enjoy being rude to Fred, but at least he publishes his
email address like a man....

Anyway, to the above (so that what I wrote at the time isn't all wasted,
at least).

Your logical fallacy is that of the excluded middle; that if I am
against going to war against Saddam, I must therefore support him, and
all his atrocities. Tain't so.

I'm glad to see him gone at last; indeed, I've been on record since 1991
as saying that Bush Senior shouldn't have cried off when he had the
chance, but that we should have pushed on to Baghdad in the closing
stages of Desert Storm, and deposed him then.

But he didn't; so do you want to suggest that he, and every President
since until Bush Junior, and even he at first 'ardently supported Saddam
Hussein, his rape rooms, torture chambers, gassing of his own people'
etc?

After all, by your own logic, you must think that.

The moral fallacy in there is that 'the end justifies the means'. Saddam
is a bad man, doing bad things to his people (true) so we can remove him
by extra-legal means. No, alas, not in my book you can't.

Finally, there's the political fallacy. When we went into Iraq, it was
to remove the clear and present danger his WMDs posed to us.

In fact, the WMDs only ever killed one man, the UK weapons inspector Dr
Kelly, up for consideration for the Nobel Peace Prize we hear, until he
said what he knew a little too frankly to a BBC journalist, who 'sexed
up' in turn (and rather carelessly) what Kelly had said about the 'sexed
up' dossier; Dr Kelly found himself where his own integrity wouldn't let
him be, and tragically committed suicide.

Now we know (as we suspect our governments always knew) that truth about
the WMDs, though, that there never were any such, the ground has shifted
to 'our humanitarian concern for the people of Iraq, suffering under
their oppressor'.

Sounds fine and good, but it won't wash. Didn't stop the US helping to
overthrow the democratically elected Allende in Chile, who was doing
good things for his people, and thus bringing to power the corrupt and
cruel Pinochet, who likewise oppressed them. Didn't stop Nicaragua, El
Salvador..... Hasn't got us charging into Zimbabwe either, where Mugabe
deserves the same unseating that Saddam got.

Humanitarian concerns, while they might be important to you and me,
don't serve as much more than a fig leaf at governmental level, where
realpolitik rules.... Tough world, alas, but there it is.

Anyway, I don't normally quote private emails on public groups.
But then I don't normally expect that to be my only means of reply.

Back to the French, anyway. That's France. France isn't Europe, any more
than Louisiana is the USA.

>The next item is even more ironic.  You should remember that the BBC or
>Beeb International service cut away to an innocuous story just before
>the statue of Saddam was torn down.

Denys knows perfectly well that while I don't know what the Beeb
International did - though I'll believe his 'what', while wondering if
they felt more constrained by the normal bounds of scheduled programs,
say, to cut away from the tear-down, rather than Deny's implication that
it was because they couldn't bear to show their hero's downfall - I do
know that the BBC in the UK kept with it, displacing scheduled programs
as a result.

This was observed by my wife, who is, BTW, greatly in favour of the Iraq
war. (and is able to debate it with me on a much more civilised level
than Denys seems to be able to have managed, so far, not least because
she needs both her hands to gesticulate with, and so can't keep her
fingers in her ears for long).

In this context, it's interesting that we can both watch the same BBC
and ITV news without crying bias - ITV is better, but that's just
because they seem to get to the nitty-gritty of things, not because of
any different bias. And in all matters, not just Iraq. Re newspapers,
she get the Daily Mail in the week, and I get the Independent on Sunday.
It's always been anti-war, but it knows how to keep fact and opinion
compartmentalised.

So- mentioning the BBC here, when it actually did what I assume Denys
would have wanted; who's spinning now?

>  Unable to spin the truth to fit its
>whimsies, the BBC has now issued an edict to its reporters on how they
>should refer to Saddam Hussein from now on.  Read it here:
>
>http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003583553,00.html

Yep, Beeb World Service people have got to call him 'former President',
not 'former dictator'. You can see the difficulty though; of course we'd
like to accord such titles as President only to people who gained them
through election processes that we thought were democratic, fair, and
properly conducted. But what the hell would we call Bush, then?

It's interesting though, that while the Beeb hasn't denied the report,
all the references to it on Google seem to go back to that Sun article.
Now I don't know if you know about the Sun; while it isn't exactly our
National Enquirer (and it's *way* more reliable than quoting science
fiction), equally, it isn't exactly a paper of record. In fact, most
people will know it best for its 'Page Three Girls', the picture of a
bare-breasted lovely that it prints there each day. The popular theory
has it that most of its readers couldn't find it if it was much further
in, and certainly not by counting :-)

>And finally, as many newspapers and media outlets are wont to do at the
>end of the year, National Review posted a recap of the European press
>shenanigans over the last year.  Now, please remember that National
>Review is NOT a news organization; it prints editorials from various
>conservative writers on the current news and the arts. Enjoy.
>
>http://www.nationalreview.com/europress/boyles200312300000.asp

As I think you have observed elsewhere, Denys, we in Europe are *way* to
the left of much US thinking, and, without knowing anything at all about
the National Review, I found myself thinking 'how right is this?'
(that's '-wing', not 'correct', BTW).

But they like Top Gear, so they can't be all bad. However, we drive on
the left, so this program has to go quite a bit to the right to get that
all-important BBC 'balance'.

>Happy, safe and prosperous New Year to all.

>Denys

Likewise. Now you can be as conservative as you like in yourself, but
will you please consider being a bit more liberal with a working email
address?

Regards


Roy

--
Roy Brown        'Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be
Kelmscott Ltd     useful, or believe to be beautiful'  William Morris

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *