| My good friend -------� How wonderful to receive such a long and thoughtful email from you on such a serious topic. I hope you will accept my criticisms of your comments in the spirit of intelligent debate and not, as I feel reading your words, a vitriolic and somewhat personal assault. I agree with the article on the media from the Globe web site. Conservatives are more skilled than liberals at shaping the national debate on public policy, and that has always been the case, in part because conservatives almost always own the means of media distribution. I�d say that many reporters are middle of the road to somewhat liberal, but that the upper level management of the major media outlets are very conservative, protecting the interests of their corporate owners (Viacom, General Electric, News Corp Ltd, Disney, AOL Time Warner, and Bertelsmann AG collectively own more than half the media -- newspapers, magazines, books, television and radio programs, movies, videos, video games, recorded music, etc. produced in the entire world). You write about the recent torrent of questions that reporters have been asking government officials about US preparation and progress so far in the war against Iraq, and you imply that this is proof that the media is liberal. I disagree. Sometimes the media does ask tough questions, but those questions are almost always within certain boundaries. There may be a public debate on some issues, but those issues only cover a limited area of the spectrum. A truly liberal media would be asking why the US military is in Iraq in the first place, why Saddam was our friend when he gassed the Iranians, what is going on with our �liberation� -- your term -- of Afghanistan (how quickly we lost interest there, huh?), what will happen after Saddam is gone, and what gives the US the right to have weapons of mass destruction and to determine who else can have them? (I don�t imply that we should be content with Iraq having them, but that we shouldn�t have them either.) Instead the media asks pointed, but narrow, questions. I have been watching the coverage on CNN pretty regularly, and I have to tell you that I am surprised to find that it resembles the flag-waving coverage one expects from Fox. In addition, I am amazed at how little coverage is given to anti-war sentiment in America and throughout the world. Protesters are portrayed as idealistic lunatics; occasionally sound bites are offered from anti-war activists, but never in-depth arguments; and pro-war demonstrators, despite their smaller numbers, are given as much time when they turn out. I am enjoying the reports from embedded journalists. Their work provides a window on what is happening that was totally missing from the Gulf War. The video, audio, and photographs are amazing. I�m glad the US military has allowed them to be there. However, we cannot accept the embedded reports -- along with the precisely arranged and controlled briefings from CentCom, the Pentagon and the White House � as presenting the whole story. We should remember that the reporters in those situations have developed bonds with the soldiers and depend of the protection of the troops while in the field. Also, the US military knows what it is doing. It would not have allowed the reporters to be there if they weren�t convinced that they would present a positive story overall. I�m sorry, but I don�t blindly accept what the US government says. I�m not inclined to believe them in peacetime, and now we should remember the famous quote: �The first casualty of war is the truth.� For example, I�ve read that the top Al-Qaeda leader that you mentioned was not in a list of 50 leaders of the organization that the US released several months ago, now suddenly he is one of the top men? It may have been that the government needed to produce someone to help build public opinion in the days leading up to attacking Iraq. I believe that the soldiers, sailors and airmen who are in the Middle East are good and decent people. They are proudly serving their country and should be recognized and applauded for their willingness to step up in times of crisis. However, throughout history such people have been used by those in power for less than noble aims. This seems to be to be the case now. I believe that the US military is trying to avoid civilian casualties, but missiles make mistakes. Today the Red Cross corroborated some of the civilian casualties that the Iraqis have reported. I believe that some Iraqis will welcome US troops with open arms. However, I am sure that many will not. Despite widespread hatred for Saddam, American soldiers are still an invading army, and one from a country that has not been a friend to most Arabs and Muslims. I believe that most Americans would not support bloodshed if they thought it unnecessary, but I think that they support the war and the US government�s handling of it because they are being informed by a media that is subservient to corporations, whose directors also sit on the boards at Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, Halliburton and other corporations that manufacture weapons or stand to benefit financially from the war. I believe the war is unjust and immoral; that -- as most Americans admitted in a poll released today -- the US government painted a rosier picture of the way the war would unfold before it started; that even if the war ends tomorrow, the complexity and the will and the cost to �democratize� Iraq is far beyond what we have anticipated; and that there is a good chance that the war won�t end any time soon at all, but that the United States may be engaged in a long and bloody conflict that will cost many lives on both sides and further the hatred of Americans in the Muslim world. Jim |